[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: javahl situation

From: Patrick Mayweg <mayweg_at_qint.de>
Date: 2004-01-14 15:02:45 CET

Hi Karl,
kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> writes:
>
>
>>So would r8270 be already approved under this system as both clako and
>>myself have +1'ed it? I think you're saying it would be. I'm just a
>>bit unclear on how you're defining "any other committer." Do you mean:
>>any other full committer or partial committer in that area? Or do you
>>mean just flat out any other committer full or partial? I guess in
>>either of those scenarios r8270 would be already approved. Either one
>>works for me.
>>
>>
>
>I meant any other committer -- partial or full.
>
>At a certain point, we have to trust people to use their judgement and
>not +1 or +0 things they're not competent to review. :-) If someone
>has partial commit access only for, say, documentation, and has no
>coding experience, then they'll know not to start +1'ing bindings
>patches. (I'll mention this in the writeup, of course.) It would be
>burdensome to have a formal distinction between different kinds of
>partial committers.
>
>
>
>>>If people prefer, we can apply this system to just the javahl bindings
>>>for now, but I think it would be more comprehensible if applied to all
>>>the bindings. And after all, nothing is stopping someone from
>>>reviewing a change if they want to, no matter how many votes it
>>>already has.
>>>
>>>
>>I think it's better to have a consistent approval system for all the
>>bindings. There are times when all of the competent people aren't going
>>to have time to review things. Right now at least with the perl
>>bindings it takes the vast majority of those that are competent to
>>review them for anything to happen.
>>
>>So +1 on doing this for all the bindings.
>>
>>
>
>Cool.
>
>I'll wait another day or so for others to see this thread, before
>making the change official by committing it to STATUS.
>
>
I do know now that to compile javahl in release 0.36.0, r8009, r8012,
r8015, r8020, r8057 and r8289.are needed. I have build the javahl module
for win32, but for the other platform, a patch or a new release (0.36.1)
is needed. How do we proceed ?

Patrick

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 14 15:01:37 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.