On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 16:29, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
> > Personally I prefer that someone who wants to introduce new features
> > (even small ones, like API additions) into the core do it via their own
> > committer privileges and thus sign up to maintain it for the rest of
> Yeah well... we've been over that before, I refuse to sign that
> agreement. If that means my patches go ignored for eternity, so be
> it, but it really seems like ZC is just cutting of their nose to spite
> their face.
Can't help you much there. FWIW, I don't work for ZC anymore and I'm
still not willing to sponsor the wholesale introduction of that code
either, so I don't think it's necessarily a ZC problem. You could say
that the community of people with CVS contributor access is cutting off
their nose despite their faces, I guess that would make sense (with the
usual caveats of time vs. benefit).
> > The reason I think people don't jump on collector issues like this
> > one is because of the natural "he who touched it last owns it"
> > policy of the core code. I own enough of Zope 2 core code to make
> > me uncomfortable at this point; owning more just isn't very
> > attractive to me unless the upside is very up.
> Thats an unfortunate situation to be sure, I don't have any solutions
> to offer as its not a technical issue. All I can say is that we know
> the code doesn't care who touched it last, its going to break or work
> regardless. The sooner the community accepts that, the sooner we can
> get out of the rut and make some more progress.
Actually it would be helpful if patches that fix bugs came in as small
and easily-understood diffs. That would make the intent clearer and
would make it more likely to be sponsorable (at least by me, anyway).
Having high-quality, small, clear bugfix diffs waiting to apply on
regular bugdays would help move us forward a lot, especially on
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -