On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:12:10AM -0500, kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> The contrib directories are a way to get new developers onto the project
> with partial commit access.
We can give people commit access to tools/ just as well.
tools/ is "supported" and contrib/ is not.
That's the only distinction I am aware of.
> They also have a number of useful, but
> possibly not mainstream solutions to real problems.
The solutions that we want to keep should go into tools/.
The rest can (when it is not considered useful anymore)
or must (when there is no license) go away.
There is no reason to differentiate between tools/ and contrib/,
especially when you are talking about commit access.
As a packager for OpenBSD I found it very annoying having to
reorganise scripts from both directories into a common
/usr/local/share/examples/subversion directory.
> I would agree anything with unknown or questionable licenses should
> be moved. I could also see not including contrib in packaging
> a release. I would miss having one initial location to
> search for things instead of relying on Google to find it...
Note that the famous svn_load_dirs.pl is among the tools with no license.
There is a replacement called svn-load:
http://free.linux.hp.com/~dannf/svn-load/
But it relies on pysvn (http://pysvn.tigris.org/) which is a set
of python bindings not maintained in our tree.
Bit of a stupid situation. But it shows that alternatives are being
developed outside of contrib/ and tools/, and people are apparently
happy doing so.
> If I could vote, I would limit it to cleaning up license issues
> and not packaging the scripts, but maintain a location for people
> to share them. (This doesn't have to be /contrib, but needs to
> be something lightweight.)
Is tools/ good enough?
Stefan
Received on 2009-04-06 18:32:18 CEST