"Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think that R-T-C is the most likely way we'll get good reviews of > > code moved to the stable tree. > > Jeff is speaking from his experience with 2.0 development and I would have to > agree with him in this regard.
I believe that our experiences with 2.0 development (and recent 1.3 maintenance) are indicative of what is going to happen with 2.0-stable, or at least much more so than any experiences from several years ago. Obviously the interpretation of that experience is subject to debate :) --/-- Everybody has their own vision and we have to find the greatest commonality to decide how to work. Here are some aspects of mine: . 1.3 maintenance needs to be a bit healthier... more involvement of people when somebody wants to fix something... right now it can be hard to get anybody to give a shit when you want to fix something... . 2.0-stable maintenance along the lines of 1.3, but I think that fixing things in 2.0-stable is much more important than fixing things in 1.3.. 2.0-stable maintenance right now is for the relatively few who try 2.x before the hoped-for avalanche, and fixing their problems is going to prevent a world of hurt later on (1.3 clearly works well-enough for almost anybody) . 2.1... just like what has happened with 2.0 thus far... This has nothing to do with C-T-R vs. R-T-C; that is just a choice of which crude tool can best be used to achieve a goal. One of the useful properties of R-T-C is that if you don't have enough interest to keep a tree maintained in a healthy manner it becomes painfully obvious almost immediately. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
