2007/11/12, Christian Thaeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Hey we use a distributed revision control system, this means we can > >> merge code which is only coarsely reviewed to not contain backdoors > > OK. I wasn't sure how much quality control was applied. > Thats was my personal opinion, I am already quite sure some people > disagree with it :). But well, don't misunderstand me that I would > accept bad quality, my point is just that there has to be some start > even an unacceptable contribution might lay a seed for a better fix and > evolve into something good.
Guide to a nice distributed development model: - Major contributors get to control the central repository. - Minor contributers send patches to Mailinglist. If patches are okay and plenty, minor contributor is given commit access and becomes major contributor. - Independent code chunks are spinned of into seperate projects. API is fixed. If an API change is neccessary, he how proposed the change needs to provide patches to affected projects. - If someone is unhappy with the main repo, he may branch and create his own repo. -etc... Add in some automated test runs and a build-bot to spot regressions, and that's it. Cheers -Richard -- Are you teaching the What and the How but without the Why and the When? _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
