On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM, James Walker <walkah@walkah.net> wrote:
Uh oh, angie... ;-)
On 21-Feb-08, at 1:37 PM, Angela Byron wrote:
James Walker wrote:
On 21-Feb-08, at 7:57 AM, Moshe Weitzman wrote:
FYI, what Karoly proposes is exactly how the Mozilla project works. Each patch needs a "super review" from a fixed (but large) list of reveiwers. See http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/
Truth is, we're not so different. Mozilla has *thousands* of contributors ... they're an older, bigger project... and I think we can stand to learn from them as well as others out there. Shoulders of giants 'n' all that :-) -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
Yesterday I found this post of Stefano Mazzocchi ( http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/104/) very inspiring and I think his reflections (and Linus words too) on the difference between CVS/SVN and GIT and implications on community governance are very appropriate to issue raised on this thread. It's no matter of religion wars on versioning tools (a knife is a knife no matter you can kill someone or enjoy some pate' on a croasted bread) it's the fact that some model (delegation of the autority) could be better than other (MAINTAINERS.txt). Maybe Linux is too far from our little blue word but I guess that if we want to preserve the "passion" of this community we wouldn't move through a more beuarocratic system. Well, I don't have any idea which solution could work, but still I think the debate should take this point very seriously. best ema -- Emanuele Quinto - www.bitvark.it ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My mother used to say to me, "Elwood" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh-so smart, or oh-so pleasant." For years I was smart. I recommend pleasant, and you may quote me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------