This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: OMAP RedBoot port

Bart Veer wrote:
    Jifl> This is an interesting point. So far we've restricted write
    Jifl> access to (full) maintainers only. I would be interested in
    Jifl> other maintainer's views on whether we should open this up
    Jifl> more freely now, in the same way as GCC, GDB etc. where
    Jifl> package maintainers are allowed to check stuff in for their
    Jifl> own packages. This wouldn't be the same as a full maintainer
    Jifl> - it's purely an efficiency improvement.

    Jifl> We would also, like GCC/GDB, have a top level MAINTAINERS
    Jifl> file listing the responsibilities. Package maintainers would
    Jifl> be able to commit directly to their "own" packages without
    Jifl> waiting for approval. They can check in patches for other
    Jifl> packages too if they like, but only with approval. *All*
    Jifl> patches must go to ecos-patches in any case.

    Jifl> Comments?

eCos is rather more package-oriented than gcc or gdb. We could end up
with a very large number of maintainers, most of them responsible for
only one or a small number of packages. Each maintainer is a potential
source of security problems, e.g. compromised ssh keys.
That's a good point. The number of people with write access could proliferate out of control. I think it's probably only necessary when we can foresee a large amount of CVS access being required.

So unless anyone else has a view, then Patrick, please go with posting the patch for approval as before.


eCosCentric <>
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]