On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Sebastien Lelong <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joep, > > 2011/8/14 Joep Suijs <[email protected]> >> >> > I could argue that: >> > - people would just dump their code onto the SVN repository, as a >> > "don't >> > touch this" piece of work. Why putting this in jallib ? A private, >> > personal >> > SVN would be better. >> To have the functions available for the community? > > Should we run some kind of sanboxes in SVN ? (if yes, not in the trunk, not > to wake buildbot, and most importantly, to keep code separated from > jallib's) > >> >> > - and if a change requires the library to be updated (typically a >> > change >> > within device files), and if author object any changes on his lib, how >> > do we >> > handle this change ? We could be stuck... >> It is quite unlikely an author objects to changes required to stay >> compatible with jallib, to fix bugs, minor improvements and >> extensions. The discussions so far have been about changes that result >> in significant different code. >> >> > I understand how critical some code can be, and how reluctant one could >> > be >> > when some precious production code is running well, after weeks of >> > testing. >> > Clearly, I understand. But, again, that shouldn't be an obstacle to >> > changes >> > (I'm not talking about this case, previous case, or whatever, but in >> > general). And, again, SVN is here to help, by keeping the exact code >> > version >> > that was used to procude the precious production code. Anyone can move >> > back >> > to past revisions in order to find their lib. >> >> What I suggested was a way to deal with this recurring issue. You >> argue against it, but I don't understand how you suggest to handle >> this. Leave it as is and have this discussion about each occurrence? > > > I'm not against your way to handle this, nor am I on the extreme, I'm just > throwing some arguments from the devil's advocate :) > >> >> Grant everybody the option to change any library and discuss the >> changes afterwards? > > Shared authorship ? > >> >> The point is SMART criteria are difficult, since (absence of) >> reliability can only be determined afterwards, resource use vs >> functionality is highly dependent on the nature of ones project and >> the value of specific arguments is often personal preference too. I >> can only imagine the one with the most arguments, most messages or >> longest messages wins ;) Well, except for the majority vote like Matt >> suggested of course... >> >> Like you, I see the interest of the community. But I don't think it is >> wise to allow anyone to make any change he likes (as opposed to the >> author to object to any change). > > Yes, I agree, it's not wise to allow anyone to make any changes he likes, > nor it is wise to object any changes as well. There's a treshold here, > that's why it's hard to get a consensus. And that's why I'm throwing rough > arguments on the table from the extremes (though I don't mind them), because > none of the extreme should be allowed. >> >> But most importantly, I hope we can agree on some general rules >> (guidelines) how to deal with this kind of situations and avoid these >> long discussions in the future. > > Sure. I've already put a lot in this kind of discussion, I may stay quiet > and see what happen :)
Nothing will happen. :) Because there are less people than you think which are using those libraries. Also is August and most of the living people are out in the holiday. Except those which are coding...So, finally it dos not matter the way you'll do. Vasile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
