From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9464 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2003 15:26:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9450 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2003 15:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.130.111.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 15:26:44 -0000 Received: from [128.130.111.28] (naos [128.130.111.28]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0UFQQZc012863; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:26:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:26:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Christopher Faylor cc: Caroline Tice , overseers@sources.redhat.com, Geoff Keating Subject: Re: problem with form for applying for cvs write privileges In-Reply-To: <20030130150918.GC1907@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20030130150918.GC1907@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Usually we only provide CVS write access to developers who have >> contributed regularily, not to those who perhaps will contribute >> regularily. >> > >That has been our policy, as far as I understand [...] > In the case of Red Hat folks the policy *is* followed strictly. Sorry, that was ambiguous: from the overseers side, the policy definitely has been followed strictly. What I ment is that (apparently) in the case of some Red Hat employees GCC maintainers sponsored accounts relatively liberaly. I just checked our MAINTAINERS file, and if you do an egrep \ 'Tom Rix|Jeff Knaggs|Matthew Hiller|Chandra Chavva|Michael Tiemann' \ ChangeLog* */ChangeLog* */*/ChangeLog* you'll see what I mean (Michael Tiemann being a very special case, though ;-) ). > However, the policy is only that a maintainer has to elect you before > you are granted access. It seemed like Geoff Keating was doing this. > Was that not the case? If it wasn't, I'll revoke the account. If Geoff okayed it, it's okay. My response was more like "Perhaps we (GCC folks) should not hand out accounts too easily, given security considerations and long term maintainance". Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/