Urias McCullough wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Sean Collins <smc.collins@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:crap, I totally forgot the haiku dev and inc lists were sepearte, email client was only showing thread titles. Sorry about the Urias. I still think it would be a good idea to grant commit access, so long as it can be containted to a specific area or maybe setup a separate branch " not sure if thats the correct term in git" and grant access there. I do know working outside the project has proven to be problematic in the past for both the author and the devs as a group.
The tricky part of the IRC discussion I was involved in regarding your
contract, is your current lack of commit rights to the official git
repository.
I think for contracts, it make sense to grant commit rights, even if just
temporarily, it makes it easier for everyone.
That's sort of a tricky solution.
As it currently stands, Haiku, Inc. is not really in charge of
deciding who does/doesn't have commit access (which is probably fine).
As such, Haiku, Inc. doesn't really get to decide that "because we're
paying this person, they get commit rights"... that would be for the
existing developers to decide independently.
We also don't automatically grant commit rights to GSoC (or GCI)
students, which is a very similar situation - but they are assigned
mentors who (for the most part) do have commit rights. This process
works very well currently. I don't personally want to push for
changing the dynamics of the project such that "paid development"
(whether it's us, or Google) automatically gains commit access, so as
long as we have a process for managing this, I'm content.
As a similar example, if some other random corporation was paying
someone to write code to improve Haiku, would we assume they
automatically get commit rights? It's sort of a bad precedent to set
for an open source project. Very few of them work that way. It's
usually based on a combination of merit (quality of code), and
commitment to the fundamental "rules" of the project. It's also
uncommon to grant commit access temporarily, as most projects grant it
indefinitely unless there's some specific reason to revoke it at some
later time (which would usually be voted on again).
As for voting him as a committer - I'm not even committer myself, so I
couldn't even begin a vote ;)
- Urias
