On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Fabrizio Giudici < [email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess, BTW, what are the popular projects that can be designed as "Open > community".
I think this kind of openness can be harmful, but like I said earlier, it's actually a very good indication of where a project stands in its life cycle. Very young projects or projects that are not getting a lot of traction can benefit a lot from having very liberal commit rules because they are trying to build a community, add features and have very low backward compatibility risks. As your project becomes popular and increases its user base, you owe it to your existing users to lock down the external contribution process, period. I've been on both ends of that spectrum and speaking from a personal open source standpoint (TestNG) and corporate one (Android), it was absolutely enlightening to me to see all these commits that look very strong, have good tests and even comments and documentation and yet having to turn them down because they break other subtle parts of the product that the contributor either didn't know about or doesn't care about. -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
