On Nov 1, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Apache doesn't let anyone commit any code they like, community or no. So >> there must be a point on the spectrum between accepting anything and >> accepting nothing we have to find. I only happen to think we will need to >> have a stronger bias towards wanting coherent, tested, documented code >> coming in as the project evolves. Not now if you like -- but by "1.0", or >> else what does that mean? >> > > That makes a bit of sense... my > >> >> Ruminations remain fine. We have patches and branches and still ample >> wiggle >> room to commit and collaborate iteratively in HEAD between releases. >> > > Fine. > > >> I just think you get what you ask for in a case like this. if bits of ideas >> are accepted into the project, we'll end up with lots of people's bits. If >> the bar is higher for quality and consistent, I believe people do match the >> standard they see and hit that bar. We're already talking about people who >> want to do what it takes to contribute something. >> > > That is fine for the production ready things, but not everything springs > from the brow > of Zeus fully formed. There needs to be a mechanism whereby new things can > evolve > to this state. > > Perhaps we need the additive inverse of the attic. An incubator space, if > you will, that can > be used to add new capabilities for community commentary and improvement. > The life > cycle will be that things in the incubator will have to be accepted into > Mahout or move into > the attic. That allows some of both world views. >
I'd say it is more the difference between trunk and X.Y. Trunk is where you can innovate. It's longer term. A revision branch is dedicated to back compatibility and incremental improvements, sometimes fed from trunk.
