Seems to me that a more distributed change control system like git would
allow would-be contributors to put their code up for scrutiny without
having to create sandbox projects and the like.
If enough people get behind some patches, they could iterate faster and get
it checked into the mainline faster...
What do you think?
On Aug 21, 2013 4:14 PM, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:07:51 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> "but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_ work"
>>
>> I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly
>> broad) discussion list.
>>
>
> You seem to answer that below ("nobody can expect such draft work to
> be committed").
> That's what I mean: To be committed, it must meet our self-inflicted
> quality requirements.
> Even when it does, we are sometimes surprised how bugs can go unnoticed
> for a long time.
>
> If somebody suggest a new API/Structure and
>> backs it up even with some working proof of concept code (which better
>> explains the concept and explains some points people questioned) then
>> this is a good and huge contribution even if it fails the policy
>> requirements at first. And it is possible that other (non comitters)
>> can improve it from there. No proofs or unit tests are mandatory at
>> this (discussion) state.
>>
>> But of course nobody can expect such draft work to be committed - but
>> it might find a champion who is convinced by its idea and partial
>> existing work.
>>
>
> Could you spot one example where this happened?
> Up to now, either a regular committer picked a feature request and
> implemented it all by himself, or a committer helped a non-committer
> achieve the required quality.
>
> In fact it is much better to have a API proposal which can be adopted
>> to further proposals/clarifications without throwing away
>> documentation/test fluff.
>>
>
> The "problem" is that it is not going to be committed until it meets the
> requirements. And some people don't seem to get that simple fact.
>
> And on a unrelated topic - it is not a problem that there is no open
>> SVN repo at this stage. Neigther a policy controlled hosted repo nor
>> SVN are good for the gradual,
>> distributed brainstorming.
>>
>
> I think that we can boost the collaboration by having a more "open"
> sandbox: a committed non-committer (!) can _show_ that it works; a
> skeptic committer can use his usual tool (i.e. maven here) to check
> that it works.
>
> BTW: why is a Optimizer/Algebra System/Math Library a commons project
>> anyway?
>>
>
> What do you mean?
>
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
