On Monday, 15 May 2000 at 13:48:19 +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
> In some email I received from Greg Lehey, sie wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 May 2000 at 23:21:21 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:23:07PM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>>>>>>> Maybe the comitters ought to take an idea from many software companies and
>>>>>>> contribute $5 to the beer fund every time they break the build.  Have it
>>>>>>> all come due at the next BSDcon to fund a committer beer bash. :-)
>>>>> I think that we should make it $5.00 the first time.  $10 the second
>>>>> time.  $20 the third time, etc.
>>> Or perhaps we should tie it to the time it takes the security officer
>>> to fix, either with his own patches or by inviting patches from
>>> others, security holes that have been reported in certain libraries.
>>> If it takes the committer longer to fix the world breakage than it
>>> takes the security officer to deal with the hole, then the committer
>>> may be fined.  In all other cases, the security officer can be fined.
>>> At committer's discretion.
>>> We can then add bonuses.  Say, for example, I fix someone else's world
>>> breakage fast enough that they are able to avoid the fine, then they
>>> have to pay me either $5.00, $10, or $20.
>>> In cases where more than one committer was responsible, either
>>> indirectly or directly, then all involved should be fined.
>> I think you're missing the point.  The intention was the equivalent of
>> the pointy hat, just with the additional benefit that others might
>> have something out of it as well, no more.
> Just one other thing to add here...
> How often is it that the actions of just one person make the build
> fail ?

In nearly every case.

> I imagine if one person commits code, it works and bulids cleanly
> for them, but it's when it's imported into a source tree that others
> have changed that the previous compile-testing can be rendered
> useless.

I'd suggest it's more normally superficial testing.

> If anything, such moves as this will make people less likely to
> commit code and hence further impede the development of FreeBSD.  I
> know I personally do not have the resources (both physical and
> otherwise) to maintain a FreeBSD-current system to test any change I
> might want to commit.
> I see this money scheme as an extension of the "finger pointing"
> which does nothing to build team spirit.

That depends very much on the way it's taken.  At the moment, people
take the pointy hat voluntarily, not because it's forced on them.
It's my expectation that the $5 should be in the the same spirit.

On Sunday, 14 May 2000 at 23:50:08 -0400, Kent Hauser wrote:
> Hi all,
> I think I might have an even better solution. Continue passing the
> pointy hat around & I'll buy the committer's keg at the next
> BSDcon. I for one appreciate the exceptional funcitionality of
> FreeBSD (especially the IPSec support). And also, if I buy the key,
> maybe I'll also be invited.

Everybody's invited.  And yes, we'll gratefully accept the keg.  But
that has nothing to do with the original idea :-)

Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to