On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 08:39, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:45 AM +0100 Bruno Rodrigues > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 15:16, Stipe Tolj wrote: > >> Oded Arbel wrote: > >> > > >> > Agreed. I was hoping that at least the billing issue (I remember it > >> > being talked about in the list a while back) would interest people. > >> > I do think, though, that fixes to problems not yet detected "in the > >> > wild" should go in anyway : that's why it's called a "development > >> > tree", if the solution does not break anything - of course. > >> > IMHO, the current situation where the CVS build must never be broken > >> > because it is the "production version" and so patches require careful > >> > scrutiny before going in is not healthy. CVS _is_ the place to test > >> > fixes and new features - when you require that people will download and > >> > apply your patches one by one, the number of testers will shrink to the > >> > number of people interested in the specfic patch - which in a > >> > not-so-high visibility project like Kannel could easily get down to 1~2 > >> > people - or even less. > > I agree. CVS is for development and users do not like to apply many > patches themselves in order to get it into a certain state.
But kannel have some special kind of users. Besides the ones that wants to test kannel against a modem or mobile, the majority are almost "power users" that don't get scared with terminology of stable and unstable. It's like beeing afraid of debian unstable :P > > I'm always using cvs in production. Some bugs are only visible on > > production systems and I don't have time to do testings before > > upgrading. And if some message is lost, I can always blame the SMSC ;) > > You must be a lucky chap then. :-) I just have the facility to being able to have a production system to do debugging, and some knowledge to fix quickly if something goes wrong (and there's always the local bearerbox.old and smsbox.old ;) )
