Dan Pascu wrote: > On Tuesday 03 October 2006 01:07, Ilias Lazaridis wrote: >> Dan Pascu wrote: >>> On Monday 02 October 2006 18:37, Ilias Lazaridis wrote: >>>>> -- documentation is a big plus. >>>> again, can be provided incrementally >>> Experience shows that this almost never happens. Once someone gets >>> his pet code integrated, they never care to document it. They know >>> how it works and don't need documentation, so they don't bother. >>> What is worse is that (in my experience) they don't even return to >>> maintain their code (in case it was something more than a bug fix) >>> and the original author is forced to fix and maintain their code >>> later. >>> >>> Currently the SQLObject documentation is scarce. There are so many >>> things you can only find out about if you read the source, and there >>> are things in the existing documentation that are no longer accurate >>> and can be misleading. And I haven't seen any incremental addition to >>> them, but while I read the code I discover new undocumented things >>> added regularly. >> I see. >> >> Al this you've mentioned gives me the impression of a badly organized >> project. > > I think you got it all wrong here. I'm not talking particularly about > sqlobject. I was expressing my experience with a dozen open source > projects I participated in as either an active developer or just a user. > It's the quality of the people that contribute to a project that gives the > result, not as much how resources are managed. You have to have what to > manage in the first place. An opensource project is not a company where > people are motivated by a salary and have deadlines they must respect and > a management in front of which they have to answer. It's _very_ difficult > to get quality developers that are willing to devote their time in the > long run to a project, and stay course for a long time. Not to mention > that when the project leader doesn't appear to show any kind of interest > about the project anymore, what kind of message do you think that will > send to new developers trying to get involved? No wonder it is perceived > as an abandoned camp, where effort is not worth investing anymore.
ok. > And the way you put it makes it the perfect example of what I just said. > When Oleg tried to outline some basic rules for code submissions, which > were only meant to improve the project management, you were the first one > to question the need to provide the documentation, suggesting that it can > be provided later (incrementally), when everything indicates that such > approach almost always fails. I have seen countless cases of people > contributing substantial new features to a project without documenting > their changes, and after their work was integrated they dissapeared not > to be seen ever again. Good luck trying to get them to write the > documentation later. Heck, they didn't even bother to fix bugs in their > code after their patches got in the main source. > > So, can you explain how do you think that undermining the requirements > that Oleg put in place would provide better organization for the project? I just think that the requirements are not necessary within an active project. But I realize that SQLObject is not that active. . -- http://lazaridis.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ sqlobject-discuss mailing list sqlobject-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss