Josh Hurst wrote: > On 10/18/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > Josh Hurst writes: > > > Unfortunately I have to add a general note here: > > > > Please direct the flames at /dev/null. They are of no use here. > Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion > whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project > requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead.
I disagree. For example Mozilla.org passes all patches through: 1) Review (done by anyone who feels that he can do a detailed review, usually contributors who wrote lots of patches for the same component in the past) 2) Superreview (done by a fixed list of engineers who do superreviews) 3) Module-owner approval [optional] 4) Approval by drivers at mozilla.org [when the tree is under freeze or you'd like to commit to a branch which is under control by drivers at mozilla.org] Additionally you have more complicitated layers between these four items, sometimes patches/RFEs/bugfixes are stuck becase the module owner, reviewer, supereviewer or drivers at mozilla.org don't like the change or choose to ignore it (for example the "famous" RFE to get MNG support included (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574) is a good example how things at Mozilla.org are going wrong right now...) ... and that are issues which can quickly generate email traffic far beyond of what we had during the ksh93-integration project... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
