Unfortunately, we have to live on this hairy edge of is it a floor wax or is it a dessert topping. Like other "open source" projects that haveboth a publicly accessible and commercial side (see mysql or Qt)we have multiple audiences with different requirements, which forces us to keep control of the master copy and put contributors through all kinds of hoopsjust to propose changes. And we isolate our engineers from those proposals until we can at least do a gross check that they don't contain code borrowed from elsewhere. Today there's been a lot of dialog kicking around internally about how far we can go, and maybe someday you might find something come of it, but I fearthe most you could hope for is a read-only repository, certainly not something you could actually check code into.
We aredefinitely sold on the open source model for the development of TBB, which has already proven its worth. We have several ports to other OSes that we might not have had otherwise and the extra eyes on our code have improved its quality. So to aid our internal dialog, let me turn the question around: would you derive any benefit from having a respository even though it was read-only?I don't thinkanswering in the affirmative would be compelling, but it would add credence to the argument.
"Would you derive any benefit from having a respository even though it was read-only?"Oh yeah, totally. Nearly all public repositories are effectively read-only to me, since I'm not a contributor to their projects, so being more restrictive with your commit access would have very little effect. The benefits I see are: