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' ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
