Amir Czwink <amir...@hotmail.de> writes: > Thanks for your responses. > > First and foremost: I'm not trying to accuse or hold someone > accountable. I'm trying to understand (and idealistically improve) the > process.
[...] > But I wonder, how the process will work then? Every one simply commits > what he thinks is best and we regularly overwrite each others > contributions? That can't be in the best interest of nobody... Well, any expenditure and continuation of effort is voluntary. So the modus operandi is that everybody tries figuring out based on what is there and on the feedback of others how to best achieve progress in the area of their interest and then propose a contribution that others may vet to various degrees. Depending on how specific such an area of interest may be, the quality and extent of vetting may end up different. A lot of contributions are isolated with regard to how they affect the rest of the project: that may result in its inclusion even if their code quality may seem to be lacking in some respect. However you rate contributions, I don't think that many are characterized by willful sloppiness, namely a lack of quality stemming from a lack of effort. Large cohesive work on the whole code base is more likely to be driven by people drawn in by their fascination/obsession with the code/language rather than a specific musical problem. So the more special music problems have a tendency to have code less in line with the style and quality of the core code. You have to see where you see your place in such a situation. The one thing that makes comparatively little sense is complaining: things here will only get done by people doing them. Nobody is getting paid here, and complaints are rather limited in their capacity to motivate people. So usually your outrage tends to be better spent in improving code/coding rather than asking others to improve it: after all, you tend to be most motivated about the task in the first place. -- David Kastrup