Hi, On 16 April 2010 05:45, Hong Yul Yang <hongyul.yang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > I never imagined the issues with svn access would generate this much > heat. It would be advantageous for us to get commit access but at the > same time we don't want to force this on you guys either and cause any > further controversy. Don't worry or feel guilty. Last time the discussion was not really about you getting svn access, but about something else in the background. This time there not really is any discussion; it is just one person just needlessly trying to heat things up. What Axel and I were saying this time is that we did not hear from you and as such the patch seemed to be dead. Obviously, now that you said something, that is no longer true. So what to do next: obviously this is a patch with a lot of interest from everybody around. Therefore, making it available only through a separate svn branch is not the most efficient way to share it, as everybody who is interested in the patch probably also wants to keep their trunk source up to date. Distributed version control systems only partly solve that problem: there still is a lot of merging going on. Maybe we can experiment with supplying it as a flexible patch which can be applied and reapplied at will. I'm thinking about the MQ extension of Mercurial, which allows you to keep a series of patches on top of the versioned contents (the mirror of the svn repository), which seems to be the most efficient way to maintain it. I will have a look to see whether I can extract the original patch which is now in the branch, and then to supply it this way, to collect some experience with this. Regards, N>