[fdo-internals] PSC: Interesting Conundrum

Dan Stoica dan.stoica at autodesk.com
Tue Jan 16 15:03:01 EST 2007

Yet another reason to favour option 1:  in many cases a certain fix is
made in code shared by several providers (e.g. FdoCommon). That is, it
affects other providers as well.


-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:39 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] PSC: Interesting Conundrum

I'm with Frank. Geotools and udig share the same repositories, we have 
different people with commit privs, and we have *never* had a problem 
with people committing where they shouldn't.  Even though SVN allows us 
to lock up the different trees with ACLs, we have never bothered.


Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Robert Fortin wrote:
>> All in favor of option 1. Providers are always targeting a specific
>> version of FDO so it make sence that they are generally branched with
>> FDO.  Splitting the reporitories has resulted in additional work when
>> creating branch plus issues around common component used across
>> providers.
> Folks,
> I am also in favor of merging the repositories.  Generally speaking I
> think mechanical means are the right way to restrict people to
operating on
> limited parts of the code.  If we don't trust someone enough to obey
> procedures on what parts of the code base they can modify, then we 
> shouldn't
> be giving them commit access.
> Best regards,

fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list