-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 what if the bug fix includes changes in behavior that for some users is considered a bug in itself? (like how it happened at first with the issue of auto-granted permissions permanency being abused, where the initial proposal of simply auto-revoking hen the avatar stands up would break content that produced a graceful transition from sitting to standing up by animating the avatar right after it stopped being sat on the prim)
On 18/3/2010 09:02, Carlo Wood wrote: > Here is some food for thought: > > -- Question: Who determines what is added to the viewer and what not? > > I propose (to be decided by Lindens, not others) the following: > > There are two different categories of things that can be added > to the viewer: > > Category 1: Bug fixes; intended behavior is not as expected. > Category 2: Features; intended behavior is changed (added). > > Category 1 > ---------- > > These are handled the same as category 2, but without the need > to decide at the user-experience level if the patch is wanted. > Thus, for *accepted* feature AND bug fix: > > A committer writes the patch. > The patch is reviewed by other committers. > No committer can stop a patch entirely, but they can request > patches to be taken back to the drawing board based on: > > * CPU usage (FPS drop) > * Memory usage > * Coding style > * Maintainability (how easy it is to make changes without breaking it) > * Robustness (chance it breaks accidently by changes elsewhere) > > Committer are expected to work together and respect eachother, > but especially the original committer needs to be prepared to > spend another week or two to address each and every comment > made by other committers (for which the jira is used). > > When all other committers involved, with a minimum of one other > committer, are satisfied; the patch may be committed. > > Category 2 > ---------- > > In the case of a new feature, the new feature should really > first be discussed on this list, before being implemented. > > What is being discussed are the effects on the users, not > the technical effects like CPU usage etc. Non-committers > can (politely) provide insight and feedback, but do not > have any vote on whether or not a new feature will be added. > > In fact, nobody has a vote: in the end it's the call of > Linden Lab, where we assume that if any Linden speaks his/her > decision on the list that that is the internal decision of > Linden Lab (and another Linden will not suddenly oppose). > > Each feature must be carried by a committer. That is, someone > must step forward and offer to write it, test it and be > prepared to through the hassle of Catergory 1 above. In most > cases this will be a committer whose own idea the feauture > is, that is the advantage of putting time into actually > writing (good) patches. It is not a bad thing that committers > have this priveledge. Of course, it is also possible that > a committer decides to backup an idea of someone else. > [There is no reason he cannot be paid for that, but I expect > that in general this will not be the case]. > > Linden Lab will take the following into account when making > their decision about a new feature: > > * This is about Snowglobe ONLY; whether or not it's also > added to the official viewer is a separate issue. > * They will NOT take maintainability into account, that > is the responsibility of the open source community. > * If the new feature has no last impact on the user > base, which can always be achieved by making it optional > and/or not the default, they will let themselves strongly > be influenced by the consensus of the list discussion. > * The opinion of committers is taking more into account > than the opinion of non-committers, because it's the > committers who have to maintain the code. > * The decision is made in a timely manner (ie, within > two weeks after the discussion on this list dies out). > If no decision is communicated within a reasonable > time, they right to a final decision forfeits and the > feature may be added (all with gentlemen agreement of > course). > > For example, the Life Cycle of a new feature might be > the following: > > * User thinks of new feature and adds it to the jira. > * Several people find it and vote for it. > * Feature comes to the attention of someone on this > list and brings it under the attention of a committer. > * Committer commits himself (haha) and post to the list > with implementation detail ideas. > * Everyone has their say in a civil and polite way. > * The design (on "paper") goes through a few cycles > until the committer that committed himself doesn't > want to make more changes. > * Linden Lab gives the red or green light. > * In case of a green light, the committer writes a > patch and tests it. Then attaches it to the jira. > * At least one other committer tests it and makes > comments about implementation details. > * Original committer rewrites the patch and/or > fixes bugs, until all other committers that want > to spend time on reviewing are satidfied. > * The patch is committed. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuilDcACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmUIlgCeIc3qJYNgi6bqHZ0IDJyxTXRK rE8An1aHFSXMpCZDLB0msMUoRTosBy3M =8Xas -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
