I agree with what you said in general ... but specifically I didn't seem to
find anything to say...

Sam
On Apr 3, 2012 10:11 PM, "Miguel de Benito Delgado" <m.debenit...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> WOW! Please not everybody at the same time!! xDD I knew this would be a
> huge success, but hey, give me break!
>
> Hehe... ok, my idea apparently sucks. Maybe next time we meet, when I get
> I chance to talk everyone's ear off...
>
>
> Miguel de Benito Delgado wrote:
>
>> Not so long ago, Joris proposed that we constitute a team of developers
>> and interested people. Although not many have shown interest (where are you
>> people??!), there is still the possibility that more join in and with them
>> there will be an increase in the difficulty of coordinating efforts.
>>
>> During the last week a couple of items in the tracker have been the
>> origin of a long series of questions and problems, amounting to an absurdly
>> huge waste of time, mainly because it was not clear to me why something had
>> to be done (or rather not done) in a particular way. So I just kept asking.
>> In the end the problem was that Joris is working in a related task
>> ("reorganizations" :-) which will somehow render the current approach, and
>> any patchy solutions on top of it like mine, obsolete.
>>
>> Most of the pain and waste of time in that exchange could have been
>> avoided if either I just shut up and did as I was told (I sometimes really
>> should, I'm sorry for that) or if a detailed list of the tasks currently
>> undertaken by each developerhad been available. Preparing and maintaining
>> this list is in itself a time consuming task whose burden falls upon every
>> one of us, but I think the net result would be a gain of time.
>>
>> So I propose the four of us who are actively committing code at the
>> moment, and any who are not but anyway work in some part of the project or
>> wish to do so, input their objectives into the task tracker in savannah.
>> With details, clear scope and current information or it will be totally
>> useless. Any ideas or alternative to this approach would be very
>> appreciated.
>>
>> If there is to be such thing as a team, then we must act as one. We must
>> know what the others are doing, why and when, or else there is no
>> possibility of initiative.
>>
>> This idea of keeping detailed task lists is evidently most relevant in
>> relationship to Joris' work, because he is by far the most active developer
>> and the one with the main goals in his head (I realize the perceived waste
>> of time my proposal would mean for you, sorry!). The approach:
>> "contributors should just prepare patches and send them" is fine when the
>> patches address little, focalized problems which do not interfere with
>> Joris' current projects, but it's totally inadequate for long term
>> subprojects.
>>
>> Now some ranting...
>>
>> All this is of course partly in my own interest because I like to peek
>> around the code and hate sticking to one particular task. In my opinion,
>> cubicle-work is fine for a cubicle-job with corresponding salary and
>> increasingly depressing workdays, not for a community. There is naturally
>> the opposite view, that we each ought to do what we are told to, or what we
>> agreed to in the first place and only under exceptional circumstances
>> wander out of our domain. When properly implemented, this is probably more
>> efficient in many (most?) cases and what any project leader might wish for,
>> but it's not something one usually volunteers for. After all, I do this for
>> fun.
>>
>> Take for example the new "persistent storage". What is its intended use?
>> Does that affect work related to preferences? Should I ditch what I did
>> with those? And the new buffer related stuff: it renders completely
>> obsolete my (few) ideas for better project management (and surely is
>> incompatible with some of them). Or take the search feature or... well, you
>> get it. The problem is not that my work is ditched because it's wrong or
>> can be improved (it always can), the problem is that I shouldn't have
>> started it in the first place!
>>
>> Well, that's enough ranting for an email. Any ideas on the real issue?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Miguel.
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/texmacs-dev<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev>
>
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev

Reply via email to