RE: [Squeak-VMdev] RE: Pending 3.2 and VM sources @ sourceforge

[Andreas R. <And...@gm...>]

Rob,

> Do we know that we can restrict access to the main trunk to the
> maintainers, then issue expanded rights to select individuals to their
> branches?  The original model we had discussed was that the main trunk
> was the most volitile, and both experimental work and stable releases
> (and it's patches) are managed as branches.
> 
> What are the user access controls available to us from SF?

None as far as I know. If you have developer status you have commit
rights anywhere (I think they've never anticipated that kind of strict
distinction that we're discussing here - perhaps it might be worthwhile
to send them a note explaining why we think along these lines).

BTW, I've been thinking about the issue of (either accidentally or
non-accidentally) making "mistakes" but (in hindsight) I really don't
think this is going to be a problem. For one thing, we _all_ make
mistakes at times (just remember this fundamentally flawed ClassBuilder
CS recently), CVS can deal with many of the problems in a reasonably
straightforward way, and I also don't think the VM developer community
would tolerate any non-agreeable behavior that would put the stability
of Squeak on _any_ platform at risk. The last line of defense is having
project admin status which (as far as I am aware) all of the primary
maintainers have. 

It still bothers me that I _could_ make modifications to (say) the unix
tree but it appears that this can't be helped. Perhaps a good line in
the policy document would be to state that you "Never, NEVER do a 'cvs
commit' from the platforms directory but only from your platform branch
(win32, unix, Mac, Acorn, Cross)". I've been using this policy for me
already and so far it turns out to be a good practical rule.

Cheers,
  - Andreas