20 Jun
2008
20 Jun
'08
10:19 a.m.
Yes! Before the audit we had a release manager. It was his
responsibility to track down which code segments worked and test them.
I guess right, that was Ge job at one time when we had cvs. Things
have slimed down since then and many developers left the project. I
guess now due to laziness on our part this has been unfilled. Since we
have svn now we do branches and that job went to Brandon, he's gone
too so~. Yes we are lazy and the easiest fix to all of this mess was
to create a release branch and sync fixes to that like I use to do.
Basically doing the thing Aleksey wants to do in the first place with
out starting a fight.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Richman Reuven
<richman.reuven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
hi! i've been following the project for a couple
of months and this kind
of drama, i really didn't expect...
both sides have a point.
a serious project needs a working tree and a work-on tree. (the temp
working implementation vs correct implementation by magnus isn't a
simple issue, perhaps there should be another tree for that as well or
for it to be a work-on-far tree like linux-staging tree - to work on
things which don't enter the next release...)
but asking one developer (and quite an experienced, one of the top
contributors) to be the only one to be double checked is...
coding conventions also do matter. however I don't think that the diff
between !f00 and f00==false is what's causing the breakage.
i really don't understand how such a project at this stage, doesn't
adapt any of the methods used by virtually every other project to manage
the process...
also as far as the "it's a private problem" opinions, it couldn't be
any
more wrong! this kind of thing and these decisions will be _hunting_ the
project for a long while!
i know both sides seem to be in a "pinch" but it'd be really best if you
guys said "sorry i was wrong" in private and reported the issue as
resolved...
sorry for the intrusion...
No,,,, good one~