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 
'developer' releases.

> Big
> 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

Reply via email to