Re: Intolerable CVS behaviour

[Sri Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

> We need to be an open project.  Not a project of closed elitist, egomaniacal
> bastards.  Yes GNOME is successful, and yes GNOME is used by many people.

I resemble that remark.

> But that is no reason for us to feel supperior to any hacker that comes
> along.  That is no reason for us to feel supperior to translators because
> we're coders, and they're "JUST" translators.

I don't think thats really the issue.  People want varying degrees of
control over their area.  Some people are not comfortable with open
commits like you are or are afraid of extra work caused by other people.
It's a question of style.

ACLs imposed across the board impede's on how each maintainer wants to
maintain their packages.  In general, GNU projects have always worked with
the mindset that a maintainer is in supreme control of their package and I
believe this extends to how they want CVS commits to happen.

Someone mentioned conditional ACLs and I think thats the best way to go.
It should be up the maintainer(s) of each package to decide how commits
should happen.  If they wish to use an ACL type access then that should be
up to them to do so.  As long as you use the same mechanism across the
project this should establish a happy medium.  Lets not impose rules on
maintainers who don't see a need for them.

regards,
sri