On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:09:41 +0100, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
I completely agree. In the end, there's a similar thing than the "open
closed" principle, and the focus point is which is the best trade-off.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
"We make Java work. Everywhere."
http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - [email protected]
--
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.
