Hi people!

Marcus Denker <denker at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> To come back to the example: Don't forget that we strike for a "fast 
> moving agile" process.

Yes, and I think we should really sit down and try to set up Monticello
for managing the image. Avi has already done some experiments. Then we
should of course have limited "commit" access to that.

This way we can have BFAV for the contributions coming in (like patches
in other open source projects) and we can go straight to Monticello for
other stuff.

Such a model would help A LOT I think but it will demand two things of
developers with such commit access:

1. Test it locally first. Don't commit stuff that is half baked. This is
basic stuff for working in an open source project of course. In the
Mozilla project they say that the "tree is on fire" when someone does
that.

2. Write proper commit notes (= commit comment in CVS). Those will be
critical in knowing what has been done and for us to be able to produce
ChangeLogs.

I think perhaps if we do this step first - then we can more easily pick
up the TFNR goals again. It will be easier to perform those things when
we have a "full Monticello" working.

Avi? Comments? Is Monticello up to the task? :)

regards, Göran