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

Re: branch liberalization

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2007-11-20 20:39:56 CET

"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
> With all due respect to the time you've invested into this wonderful
> explanation (and with apologies for the fact that I raised the question on
> s-f-c despite my convictions that doing so was unnecessary), I think this
> policy is already official. It just doesn't use the words "branch" anywhere.
> This from hacking.html:
> How partial commit access is granted
> A full committer sponsors the partial committer. Usually this
> means the full committer has applied several patches to the same area
> from the proposed partial committer, and realizes things would be
> easier if the person were just committing directly. Approval is not
> required from the full committers; it is assumed that sponsors know
> what they're doing and will watch the partial committer's first few
> commits to make sure everything's going smoothly.
> Does this differ significantly from what you've said?

Good point, it's basically the same idea; I've made it explicit in
r27948. Thanks!

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 20 20:40:41 2007

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.