On 10/ 9/14 01:15 AM, Bayard Bell wrote:
On 8 October 2014 23:36, Nikola M. <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It was probably lack of organization that killed many efforts before.
From my experience trying to walk a mile in his shoes, I fully endorse
Alasdair's observation that a clearly established historical problem
for OI was having meetings to talk about organisation and process with
people in the hope that they might contribute. When it comes to
established practice, there is nothing novel about the proposition
that one earns a say in the workings of an open-source community with
sweat equity. One encourages people to contribute rather than bargains.
If you think this claim is simply polemical, you might as well argue
with the wind.
Idea of reviving /dev sureley needs work. No one questions that.
If you think to start polemical talk, that is no issue here.
It is about exact ways of releasing /dev and that it can not be just
'releasing snapshot' without TESTING.
Because next thing you know is people complain new /dev have too many
bugs in it.
And it is because making /dev is not possible without testing updating
from current /dev to Hipster snapshot, If that is the way to go.
I used and tested Hipster for a very long time and all that time i did
reporting of bugs and problems with update, apps, mounting datasets in
/opt, GNOME bugs, update bugs, etc.
And it all went through IRC and not on mailing list, because of number
of people involved actually that was fastest way to do it.
So in a nutshell, things get tested and reported and I was testing
everything i can for a very long time.
And there are positions too that people take to contribute in
distribution, that are not measured by Github logs. (And why Github but
OI's own repositories etc.).
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
