river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Holger Hoffstätte <hol...@wizards.de>
Subject Screw "the future".
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:00:55 GMT
Jools wrote:
> So many times I see "I've made a local change to allow..... blah blah
> blah", so why wasn't it easy to get that change into the code base in
> the first place ?

Because the Apache committer model, combined with the chosen
patch-and-review process and the set of existing River committers, are
apparently not compatible with each other. I say this simply as an
observer of the results, without trying to imply too much.

Since lenghty discussions at Apache (elsewhere) have made it clear that
the former is unlikely to change, that would leave the latter as, erm,
attack vector.

Speaking as someone who used to successfully fix teams and dev processes,
I can assert say that the intended dynamics by the meritocratic model only
work under certain social circumstances. These do not seem to be met - in
other words, for whatever reasons the committers are either not committed
or committing.

That being said, I agree that forking would be counterproductive at this
point, if only because many small incremental improvements can be fixed
without falling into second-system-syndrome and the "big rewrite/fix
everything" trap.

I will not mention the consequences of a centralized scm very
intentionally. (:


View raw message