> The truth is that contributors tried to be as non-invasive
> as possible, changing as little as possible in the core
...
> IOW: obstacles (real, psychological, whatever) have prevented
> or discouraged (are preventing and discouraging) some of the
> good guys outside of AOL.
OK, I'll wade into this a bit. While I have CVS commit access
to AOLServer, I will admit to not having used it. This is more
because I haven't had immediate need, not from any fear that I
would break something.
That of course is what CVS is for - bad patches can be reverted.
While CVS isn't nearly as fancy as something like BitKeeper, it
does have full rollback. Those managing the AOLServer source
should take solace in this main SCM feature when worrying about
adding new commiters.
Of course, those wanting to commit patches have to be more
appreciative of what it takes to make *good* software. I
regularly get patches that don't follow style, much less show a
sense of the larger operation of the code base. Such patches
should not be silently rejected though - they should be
encouraged through articulate explanation of what's "right"
(where "right" changes to fit a particular project).
Also, while this is a community project at some level, it is
also a critical component of AOL's server infrastructure. As
such, they have due concern that updates are stable. That can
be mitigated with dev and stable branches, but branch mgmt is
something I don't enjoy. It's great for some things - just be
careful about managing them.
All in all, adding more cooks adds more overhead for someone
(if not everyone).
Jeff
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject:
field of your email blank.
