On 4/26/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of our big problems in the past is bugzilla tickets would be filed,
> patches added, and they'd be ignored for months, even years.

Patches that propose new features or significant feature changes, yes.
Patches that fix a bug in an existing feature, not so much. We've
always applied every known bugfix before a release.

Back in the 1.1 era, we were very busy with extracting components for
the commons, meanwhile the features requests flowed in, as the
popularity of the framework grew. The features list grew to the point
that we can't see the forest for the trees anymore. We've had a "help
wanted" sign up for a volunteer to "normalize" the feature request for
years, but there haven't been any takers.

One strange phenomonen is that some of the feature request patches
have been filed by committers, but never applied. I guess sometimes we
wonder if another committer will "second" the feature. Of course,
these tickets are swallowed up by all the others filed from years
back.

I notice that HTTPD keeps a running tally about some proposed changes
in the status file. Not unlike what we've started to do with the
"rough spots" page.
----

    * If the parent process dies, should the remaining child processes
      "gracefully" self-terminate. Or maybe we should make it a runtime
      option, or have a concept of 2 parent processes (one being a
      "hot spare").
      See: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

      Self-destruct: Ken, Martin, Lars
      Not self-destruct: BrianP, Ian, Cliff, BillS
      Make it runtime configurable: Aaron, jim, Justin, wrowe, rederpj, nd

      /* The below was a concept on *how* to handle the problem */
      Have 2 parents: +1: jim
                      -1: Justin, wrowe, rederpj, nd
                      +0: Lars, Martin (while standing by, could it do
                                        something useful?)

----

I could see this technique working well to summarze many of the
development discussion we have, most recently the cancel button issue.

I also wonder if this could be a technique that we could use to
discuss some features before placing then on the feature roadmap.
Personally, if I want the feature I'm just going to commit it and see
if anyone squawks :), but other committers may be more conservative
than me :)

-Ted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to