Here is a list of the 31 unresolved bugs for which patches have been created. Only one bug is "owned" by a person. The others are owned by the developers list.
I fail to see how ownership by a person would help in applying patches more consistently. Having a 'sponsoring committer' might help to get patches applied. Then again, I think you are looking at the symptom, not the cause. <imho>The fact no sponsoring committers exist for certain patches might tell more about the patch than the willingness of the committers. I wouldn't like to see patches being committed just for cleaning out that list, but because they solve a genuine problem or add something original to the codebase. Above all, code needs a shepherding community, and we have already seen what happens if some parts of the (elaborate) Cocoon codebase are less well tended due to being one-man-shows.</imho>
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
