[sjf]

Apply some common sense, you think they let MS employees just commit to any codebase they like? And this is leaving aside all the annoying steps of locating their repository, figuring out how to build it, testing, finding out the right person to send the patch to, going through code review.

[bruckie]

"you think they let MS employees just commit to any codebase they like?"

That's pretty much how it works at Google. The code owners have to review and approve your change (and can reject it), but it's common (even encouraged) to commit a bugfix or new feature to someone else's project.

[EGreg]

How is that any different than a central maintainer of Linux accepting patches and reviewing them before they go in?

The only difference is that you can see the source and test on your own machine first.

MS employees don't have to commit to any codebase they like, but they should be able to obtain the actual source, so that "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow".

[nightski]

Actually anyone can obtain the source, it's publicly available.

[chrisbennet]

Not sure why you got down voted. I know Microsoft is open sourcing chunks of .net now. Perhaps that chunk wasn't one of them?

[seanmcdirmid]

Actually...I heard Google has developed a lot of infrastructure to allow for this: one repository, you can submit changes that are then automatically routed for review and test and such.