On Aug 5, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:

Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Fetter):
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 12:40 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
While I am not going to reopen the can of worms labeled 'bug
tracker', I think it would be good to have a little more formality
as far as claiming items goes.

What say?

I think this is a good plan for adding additional process overhead,
and getting essentially nothing of value in return. I'm not
convinced there's a problem in need of solving here...

Perhaps you'd like to explain how big a burden on the developer it is
to send an once a week, that being what I'm proposing here.

As far as the "problem in need of solving," it's what Andrew Dunstan
referred to as "splendid isolation," which is another way of saying,
"letting the thing you've taken on gather dust while people think
you're working on it."

It seems to me once a week is a bit too often to demand, particularly
when trying to "herd cats."

A burden of once a month may seem more reasonable.

One of the problems is that CVS branching is rather painful and some contributors can't commit. If there were some place where one could maintain a publicly-visible development branch just for feature X, that would make the work open source and trackable instead of "open-source-once-I'm-done".


¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to