Nice, thanks for your summary: Op woensdag 22 februari 2006 11:58, schreef Robert Douglass:
2) the "pressure cooker" organizes the queue into wheat and chaff. When Dries reviews patches, he knows that unless someone trusted has promoted it into the pressure cooker, he doesn't need to fool with it (he still can if he wants, of course). This will negate the "pester-Dries-on-IRC" necessity since any issue in the pressure cooker will automatically get his attention. It also galvanizes the community around the issues in the pressure cooker since it is clear that those are the issues being taken seriously, the ones that are likely to "make it".
Here i foresee a problem, one that you might have thought of already: Often patches and fixes are abandoned after a while. I do think that the cooker system will greatly reduce that amoutn. But what if suddenly a few cooker patches are halted and collect some dust (because there is a FAPI thing goign on, for example). Will that queue then not grow into a similar messy heap of code as the current queue-that-is-not-a-queue. Bèr ps http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-11104901402,00.html imagine them pushing to the hut at the back as a hoge mob. That is a bit how I envision the issue-queue if we continue to grow the wa we did the last year. :) Those with the strongest arms and loudest voice will make it first :) -- [ Bèr Kessels | Drupal services www.webschuur.com ]