Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> I think that Morfsta's main point isn't any specific feature of VDR
> like HD support. The point is VDR's development model itself. It is
> closed now. Patches are not the answer to this problem. Developers have
> to be very motivated to maintain patches from version till version. As
> you see, MUCH patches are already died, not because nobody wants them,
> because it's hard to maintain them for years.
VDR is not a Klaus-only development. There are several bigger code parts
that were contributed by others, and if there's a really missing feature
and someone wants to contribute it, I'm sure Klaus will carefully
consider adopting it.
The point is that Klaus has very strict demands on code quality, and
many patches never get up to that quality level. Thanks to that
strictness, the VDR sources are relatively clean and straight
implemented, and we're pleased with frequent rock-solid so-called
> part of VDR's community also want to "own" it. By ownership I mean
> here decision making and commiting to CVS/SVN/HG.
I've never seen an open source project where everyone is allowed write
access to software repositories. There's always a very small group of
people with write access, and any changes go through a strict review
process before they're accepted.
In case of VDR, it would be perfectly enough to have one person with
write access. (guess who.) And the only thing that I think that could
help in VDR development is a public bug tracking system, where bugs and
feature requests could be developed to quality patches. But o.t.o.h.
what stops us from doing this in the mailing list?
In the end, what we could really need, are some developers that are
persistent enough to develop their patches to a point where Klaus agrees
to take over the patch as it is, without the need to do it any better.
vdr mailing list