My input below.
On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
- as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not believe
he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of us but AFAICT
he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it stretches the
imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up on STDCXX ownership.
- I'm also reading through that methodology we use might not fit the
distributed model which could basically improve the pace of
development stream (and again github is nice at these things; but
there are other considerations)
The process put in place by Apache closely mirrors the rigors of the Rogue Wave
environment where the project originates. The development proceeds at the best
speed possible while at the same time proving the consistency and correctness
of the code base through passing unit tests. The process is tightly controlled
by rules which are observed by everyone (such as creating test cases before
fixing bugs, thoroughly documenting changes, following coding and code
structuring conventions, etc.). The process has an ultimate authority in the
person of the tech lead, Martin.
The end result of the _pedantic_ application of these rules is the product you
and I, all of us, enjoy. As mentioned before it is of an excellent quality, not
often seen in the software world. It also is a very sophisticated product both
with an intricate code structure, and extreme use of the language which pushes
the compilers to their limits. Any change, however small, must be carefully
considered and weighed, and careless changes will almost always break it in
subtle ways. As a rule of thumb, if there is something that looks wrong in the
source code, chances are you're not getting it right.
In case my point did not get across by now, I am strongly for the continuation
of a tightly controlled development process.
Thanks.
Liviu
