Hi all, and apologies for coming late to this discussion ... I haven't seen a lot of talk yet about how pyglet development might continue outside of technical suggestions for managing code, which seems slightly premature. First off, I may have read it differently from everyone else here, but Alex's email that started this thread seemed to say to me, pretty clearly, "I am offering to give anyone who wants it access to the pyglet repository so that you can help fix up existing issues", and it feels as though it might be a bit premature to assume that that means public carte blanche for the pyglet community (whoever that consists of) to do whatever they like. Pyglet is Alex and Richard's baby, and I think we should respect their wishes (whatever they are, and I'd love to know more precisely!) about what should be done with it first and foremost.
That said, Alex's comment about hoping an organised anarchy might come together to carry on pyglet development does seem to imply that he's hoping that some of the responsibilities might be taken out of his hands. If that's so, I see that there are two different issues we should be discussing here: 1) How do we reach an agreement on the vision for pyglet, and more specifically, decide whether a given feature should be part of it or not? 2) How do we ensure that no-one commits buggy code to pyglet? Those are two pretty different issues, and I'm worried that the idea of "forming a core team" might be conflating the two of them. A lot of people have a vested interest in pyglet and would want input into the first issue, whereas the responsibility of reviewing commits is a more mundane chore that a community-spirited volunteer could probably take on without upsetting anyone else. As far as I see it, options for the first one are: a) Alex and Richard can keep it, if they want it; b) some other person or group is given the responsibility somehow; c) all the decisions are made by some democratic process or by lengthy mailing-list arguments. Options for the second one seem to be a) someone or some group of people review all changes; b) we cross our fingers and hope. If we can get any kind of idea about the answers to those questions, I figure then (and only then) is it sensible to start talking about specifics like version-control systems. Adam On Aug 15, 4:53 pm, Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > My 2 cents: > > I think that this discussion has moved from the important topic. > I don't think it is important right now which VCS we keep using (it is > just a tool), > the important thing right now, is how pyglet is going to keep alive > (maintenance, bug fixing, improvements, port to python 3, etc). > > I agree we Tristam, we must start by merging back maintenance branch > with trunk. > > regards, > > Lucas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
