>
> >> The Linux kernel for example has a very large source code base,
> >> and has countless developers whom have worked on it under the
> >> Bazaar model, and the code is quite high quality. People write
> >> good patches, and people write bad patches regardless of what
> >> model of development is used. However, I think that due to the
> >> bazaar style of development the kernel is done under, the bad
> >> patches get weeded out much more easily, whereas with the
> >> cathedral style of development, they're more likely to simply get
> >> ignored or cast aside.
> >>
> >> Is that similar to what you mean?
> >
> >This seems to be another angle ;) My point was that the easier it is for
> >patches to go in the more attractive the project looks to new developers.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more.
>
Personal experience:
I had a simple patch to fix a typedef in the kernel, mailed to Alan Cox;
reply less than 5 minutes later: 'applied to my pool'. Appeared in the next
Linux release 3 days later. These days, with bitkeeper, the patch would be
widespread almost instantly.
This is *strong* incentive to contribution.
- Jim
--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
HP Labs, Hewlett-Packard Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
