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