OpenEuphoria

Re: Source changes

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at bluey?nder.co.uk> Jul 04, 2007
• 642 views

Juergen Luethje wrote:
> 
> Jason Gade wrote:
> 
> > I still like the idea of Rob (or some other well-respected member of 
> > the community) to have a veto option.
> 
> I like the idea concerning the veto option, too.

I was thinking along similar lines.

There probably *should* be a place where half-baked, undocumented, flakey and
experimental mods can be submitted, and equally some mechanism to stop such
ending up unintentionally/by default in the next formal release.
(I don't CVS/SVN, so if this is how it already works, pls ignore me.)

I thought about a using a sourceforge forum, but EuWiki seemed better: While
most discussion should remain on EUforum, set up "Intent to port" page(s), as a
place for anyone to post a "formal" (and carefully considered) veto. The purpose
is to maintain an apt summary, vs the 84,000 messages in Euforum, to control
migration of code from "bleeding edge" to "stable".

A veto can be logged by anyone and for any reason: inadequately documented, I
need a stable release, this code shows a bug, breaks this bit of legacy code,
etc. You must have a valid (and unique?) reason though, and of course you are
allowed to delete your veto if you change your mind.

However that would probably only work if there was a "bleeding edge" version,
ready-built, like the "overnight builds" I see elsewhere.

Obviously someone (Rob) needs final say-so over any protracted disagreement.

Regards,
Pete