On 20/07/17 12:06 , David Anderson wrote: > As far as I can tell, none of the issues you mention have anything to do > with whether > we call master a "development branch" or an "integration branch".
I know. That's why I keep trying to address that. > You seem to think that people who don't buy into your world view are > resistant to change. > Not the case. If you really think that this is "my" (exclusive) world view than that's part of the problem. Sure, our opinions differ and that's ok. Please consider that your world view is also subjective and should be reflected upon not to get skewed. Do you honestly think that either BOINC's software engineering significantly improved over the last 10 years or that it's just fine as it is? Why do projects still face upgrade issues and broken builds (see GPUGrid)? Why are client releases like 7.8 still broken, despite having a comparatively elaborate release workflow? SCM methodology plays a large role in this. > If we had more energy going to understanding code, fixing bugs, writing > documents, etc., > from the people who are able to do so, You're right. But in order to do that I think two things need to happen: 1) Improve the processes (SE/SCM workflow, automation, etc) such that energy can be used for the things you listed. Don't waste energy on bugs and self-inflicted issues that could be avoided by improved processes. That said, I'm proposing ways to increase efficiency which is particularly important considering the scarce resources at hand. That should be in BOINC's best interest. 2) Attract more energy by being an attractive OSS project. Granted, we'd have to agree on what spurs attractiveness first. > rather than dogmatic posturing, Oh, that's what I do? "Dogmatic posturing"? To the contrary, I'm making proposals that are fully open to discussion. I like to start discussions to improve things that I (and a number of others) consider to be in need of improving. Sadly, I'm often enough the only one (or one of very few) who actually (still) publicly sticks his neck out and voices constructive criticism. Do you think that calling my well-intended attempts "dogmatic posturing" can be considered "open", helpful to a previously factual discussion or is by any means inviting further contributions? There's no need to make this personal. Oliver
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
