If people want to talk, Mark, what do you care? You and a few other drones come on and beg people to stop talking. What is that about? Who in the hell do you think you are to dictate who wants to talk? You always have these facists tendencies? The trouble is that the truth hurts. Why don't you address the issue? The issue is whether Struts crapped out and lost the competition with WebWorks? You would think that did not happen and that everything was wonderful. If the reasons Struts crapped out are not addressed, guess what? It will happen again. If you keep doing the same thing you did, you will get the same thing you got. What you got in this case was a completely unacceptable code set that had to be rescrued by a competitor. Is it okay to talk about or do you still just want people to shut up?
On 3/25/06, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > May I +1000 what steve said, I'm all for a bit of digression, but this > thread has narrowed the sematic gap between "to post" and "to smear".. > Its just become some sick kind of dirty protest > http://pso.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/pso1700/DIRTY%20PROTESTS.htm.. > > Mark > > On 3/25/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave Newton wrote: > > > Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > I have no publicly-accessible open-source projects. If I did, I would > > > not give commit access to anybody that asked for it, because I do not > > > have the time to review the contributions of others and do not trust > J. > > > Random Coder enough to assume that they'll do the Right Thing, because > > > in general, most people aren't very good programmers. > > > > The whole idea that, when you give somebody commit privileges, that they > > just go beserk committing all kinds of code of questionable quality -- > > this is just not something that really happens. I recognize that it > > could happen. Also it could happen that you give commit privileges to > > someone who is outright malicious. However, the latter would be so > > infrequent really that, IMO, it's not an issue. If a wandering serial > > saboteur -- the Ted Bundy of open source coding, if you will -- happens > > to get involved in your project, well, I would attribute that to > > inordinate bad luck, maybe like walking down the street and getting > > struck by lightning. Possible, but so unlikely that it does not > > condition your decision making. > > > > What usually happens is that people sound all enthusiastic about doing > > stuff and then, when they have the commit access, they simply do > > nothing. That is what happens easily the vast majority of times. People > > overestimate the time they can devote to something. They underestimate > > the investment that it is to really get their heads around the code. > > > > When people do start using their commit privileges they are usually > > quite timid about it initially and initiate discussion on your list > > prior to doing anything remotely controversial. People typically start > > off doing very small localized things. And these things are not very > > time consuming for the more established people on the team to review. > > > > One thing that would be possible is to encourage people to get their > > legs by doing things like working on unit tests and javadoc comments and > > so on. Most projects, unfortunately, have too little of both of those > > things and letting people in to initially work on that is quite low > risk. > > > > That would provide a way for poeople to gradually get into the swing of > > things. I think that any people managing an open source project have to > > be thinking about how to get new blood into the project. > > > > > > > > Again, YMMV, and hopefully has! > > > > > > > > >>>If you have, that's great, and I'm glad it's working for you, and I > > >>>hope it continues to. > > >> > > >>It's not just working for me. It's working for a lot of people. A lot > > >>of people use FreeMarker, you know. > > > > > > > > > That's a pretty small sample size, but good :) > > > > Be that as it may, apparently it's infinitely greater than your > > experience running open source projects. > > > > Anyway, this is getting sterile. I've made my point. It is my considered > > view that this idea that the ability to commit code is something that > > needs to be this zealously guarded is not well founded. > > > > Probably a project like Struts would benefit from drastically lowering > > the bar to becoming a committer. > > > > The problem is that they've created this political structure where > > they've defined committers as people with political power and > > non-committers as people with no political power and so it has to do > > with a certain clique retaining their power. It has basically nothing to > > do with guarding the quality of the code. > > > > Actually, it is probable that being politically correct (less likely to > > disagree with the current clique) is a greater factor in becoming a > > committer than coding prowess is. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jonathan Revusky > > -- > > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
