> From: Kevin Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:04 PM > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Michael Ryan (Software Developer) < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > From: Kevin Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Thank you for this insight... I know that some open projects are > > >> more, or less, so than others. Which is my main reason for > asking. > > > > > > A closed open source project? Now that's funny... > > > > I mean in terms of accepting commits that don't fall in line with the > > "powers that be" ... some projects are very strict in terms of what > they > > will/won't accept... > > > Well, most good projects are "strict" on certain things. Namely: > > - The code must be well engineered (proper documentation, good tests, > as few dependencies as possible) > - The code doesn't have any obvious bugs or performance problems > - The code follows the style of the rest of the code (style really does > matter for code quality, and there is plenty of evidence to support > this). > - The code conforms to the licensing rules of the project. > - The code conforms to the technical goals of the project (you don't > try to commit an image processing library to a linker).
Absolutely understandable.. I was mainly referring to more political/philosophical reasons, as opposed to technical ones. Not to mention egos that get formed etc. > Where this goes bad is when you have committers who refuse to accept > patches for arbitrary reasons that aren't argued on technical merits. Well, my main point in this is often to supporting more political views (patches for say "Windows") or supporting another framework (.Net in this instance) for not really technical reasons... -- Michael J. Ryan -- Software Developer -- Apollo Group This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.
