Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 18:52, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 17:52 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> >>> I think Bruce's take is more accurate. For example, look at folks like
> >>> Dave, Magnus, Teodor, or myself; none of us have commit (afaik) but I
> >>> would like to think we would all be trusted not to screw things up if we
> >>> had it.
> >>
> >> Teodor does have the commit bit, but only for GiST, tsearch, and related
> >> code.
> >>
> >
> > Woops.. is it Oleg who doesn't have it? ISTR one of those guys didn't. But
> > more to the point, we don't have granular commit bits as your implying afaik.
>
> No, we don't ... we trust Teodor to restrict his commits to those areas
> related to his work, and that he values his commit bit enough not to
> 'stray' :)
>
> >> Well, on what basis do you think -core hand out the commit bit?
> >
> > Something along the lines of frequency of work on the main trunk? Where
> > it is more practical for a developer to just have commit than for them
> > to funnel through core, core hands out the bit.
>
> This is generally how it works ... someone has been with the project long
> enough, and has consistently submitted "clean patches" regularly enough
> that its easier to just let them commit directly instead of through a
> 'middle man' ...
Right. It is a case where the volume of patches just overwhelms us and
we give them commit access. It isn't "trust", and the only downside I
see to commit vs. non-commit users is the delay in getting things into
CVS. The delay used to be 24-48 hours, but as my responsibilities have
grown, the delay has grown as well. I am not sure how to fix that.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +