i just want to reinforce hans' point here, if you look into big projects like GNOME, every little module in the CVS has a maintainer, if you want to make a change to the module they own, you need to ask for explicit permission, if a coder is spending a lot of time on one module, the owner usually grants them permission to commit at their own will. this works really well at keeping the CVS tree in a sane state at any one time.
-joschi
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 13:37, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
whats this fear of losing control? why is everyone publishing under gpl or something similar then?
the cvs is not the only place to store things, people also have private harddisks etc. if i m not happy with the way something works, clone it, rename it, hide it or re-publish it, whatever .. the whole point of open source licensing, again?
Sure, anyone can edit the sources to the linux kernel. But there is only one person who actually says yes or no to what goes into the official kernel. (OK, probably more than one these days). This is the control that I am speaking of. Most open source projects have such overseers. We want to encourage people to keep the 'official' version of their code on the pure-data.sf.net CVS, that is why I think this option is important.
Plus if we just have a free-for-all development, there is a danger of chaos and the need to constantly rollback changes that people made to software they didn't really know enough about. Permissions/access controls are excellent tools for preventing mistakes.
.hc
zen \ \ \[D[D[D[D
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev