Re: Source changes
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> 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.)
>
Indeed, SVN has a main development stream (the trunk), and branches, meant for
experimental stuff. All facilities to merge and roll back are available. Most of
the job can be done automatically, but clearly not all.
> 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.
>
A flat, unmitigated no here.
Any looney tune could block anything for any kind of fancied up fallacy. There
had been someone like that in the past years, and there is another one these
days. There must be some veto power, but only aaavailable to those who are
responsible for public releases. Currently, that's Rob; in the future, this could
be a Wise Euphorians Council, whose initial layout and renewal system promise to
be a can of worms in practical terms.
Further, the reasons you give as examples are certainly not enough to justify
even a third of a veto. They certainly justify cooperative, incremental
amendment, not stifling conservatism.
> However that would probably only work if there was a "bleeding edge" version,
> ready-built, like the "overnight builds" I see elsewhere.
>
This is SVN's trunk. Perhaps all iterpreters are not built right away, but Rob
can do so, and anyone with enough different OSes and compilers can just as well,
running build.bat or buildu.
> Obviously someone (Rob) needs final say-so over any protracted disagreement.
>
> Regards,
> Pete
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
