This sounds ok to me. But, I will wait
a few days to +1 to see if any one else has any comments.
BTW, even if done "internally"
and then "sync'd" up, I would think they would still show up
as "'authors" of the 'commits' in the repository. If that is
not the case, then that might indicate a problem with your use of Git --
not quite using the correct workflow. Normally, when doing work 'in the
open' (especially at Eclipse) you want to be sure the author of the commit
is maintained, even if someone else commits it to the repository. If you
need help with that, please ask. But, it could be just that your internal
workflow was such that you sort of "lost" who the author was.
Thanks for your reply -- and thanks
for moving to doing "development in the open".
Elemér Lelik <elemer.lelik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To:
Tools PMC mailing list
<tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "titan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <titan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date:
03/09/2016 11:32 AM Subject:
Fw: PMC approval needed for committer vote for .... Sent by:
I understand your confusion
and I ‘m the guilty one for creating such a confusing situation.
Let me explain: the
development of Eclipse Titan is ongoing in Ericsson, and
there’s a developer team taking care of that. Up until recently, the
workflow was to update from time to time the public github repositories
from our internal git repositories
( which usually was proxied by me) , but Wayne pointed out that this
is not in accordance with the transparency and openness required by the
Eclipse development model. Which we understood and now
we are preparing to move all our development in the open; but for this
the whole team needs committer rights so they can continue working
in github (and Bugzilla etc.) under the same conditions they
did before internally. So the new committer rights
requested are for developers who are de facto developing Titan currently.
Once committer rights attributed , we can cut over to the tools provided
I hope this is will be favorably
acknowledged by the PMC.
Thank you for your understanding
and best regards
On Behalf Of David M Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 10:36 PM To: titan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Tools PMC mailing list Subject: [tools-pmc] Fw: PMC approval needed for committer vote for
We, the Tools PMC were asked to approve 6 new committer elections similar
to the attached one. Normally that is a wonderful thing. But, in this case,
there was no evidence given of Eclipse commits or history, which is typically
required to become a new committer. That is how Eclipse ensures "merit"
and not simply that someone, say, works for a certain employer.
Normally, if a project has "just started" we do not mind bending
the rules a little, but Titan has been at Eclipse for one year now, so
I would think that is time enough to learn the Eclipse rules and process,
and also time enough for new committers to develop some history with the
So can Elemer or someone explain to the PMC a little more what this is
about? Did the nominations just fail to mention the commits and history
at Eclipse? Was there some special new contribution of code? Or is there
a misunderstanding of what it takes to become a new committer?
I don't mean to slow things down, and certainly don't want to discourage
new committers -- I am sure they are all worthy. But, I do feel an obligation
to "enforce the rules" that everyone must follow since every
exception makes the next one easier, until there are no rules at all! Especially
for 6 committers at once! Makes me think something is going on that is
not well understood or documented?
----- Forwarded by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 03/08/2016 04:19 PM
tools PMC Members, This automatically generated message marks the completion of voting for Arpad Lovassy's Committer status on the tools.titan project. As a PMC member, you can approve or disapprove this vote through your My Foundation portal page: