On Jan 4, 7:59 pm, "Chris Hartjes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2008 2:02 AM, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/msg/300bec44c5902198 > > I read the post above, so let me see if I understand this correctly. > > 1) People should be allowed to commit whatever code they like to some > branch of CakePHP, only for the reason that some people feel it > unnecessary to use things like tickets, patch submissions, and peer > code review > 2) Filing tickets, bad! Unrestricted access to fuck up someone elses > code, good! > 3) Merging code from from some random, open branch is an easy thing > > First of all, this has nothing to do with there being a CakePHP wiki. > The last time there was a wiki, it was apparently a huge disaster. I > was not there during that time period, so I have no idea. However, > feel free to knock yourself out and set one up. > > Secondly, the process that exists for CakePHP seems to be as follows: > > 1) create a ticket > 2) submit a patch if one is needed with ticket > 3) ticket is evaluated by someone on whether or not it's worth doing > 4) If it's worth doing, the problem is addressed, patches are written, > tests are updated, code is committed > > See, I think it's at point 3 where people get their panties in a knot. > Look, not every bug or enhancement request is going to be addressed. > It's that simple. Also, something that you feel is super-important > might not be super-important to the core dev team. The hardest thing > to do when someone asks you to add or fix something is to say "No, I > don't think that is worth doing." > > Rajesh complains "Having fully moved to branch version, I have noted > even for adding some quotes in > cake/console/libs/templates/views/view.ctp, someone has to open > tickets and wait for core developers." Have you EVER worked on an > open source project where there was unfettered access for committing > changes to the main development branches? I have yet to see one, and > the reason for that is people write shitty code and make mistakes. I > don't know about you, but whenever I would commit stuff to the main > CakePHP dev branch I would always triple-check things before I did it. > And most of the time I was content to simply add a patch to the > ticket and let someone else handle merging the code in, because I > can't always be 100% certain that my code won't break something that > someone else, unbeknownst to me, has been working on. > > Seriously, did you (a) file a ticket and (b) submit a patch to fix the > problem? If you didn't, then I don't think you have any right to > complain about it not being done. If you did, did you follow up with > the ticket itself to see if there were any comments on it? Every > single ticket *is* read by someone on the core dev team, but people > seem to take it personally whenever their ticket isn't immediately > acted upon. Human nature, I guess. > > You can argue with how long it takes to get a bug or enhancement taken > care of. What you can't argue is that the code being created by the > core team is not of a very high quality. That is what really matters, > not turnaround time for bugs.
1. You're trying to get the acceptance of the community by slamming & misinterpreting the user. While this cabal nature might help you to be popular among the cult, this won't help you in real world. 2. I'm/I wasn't complaining anything. I was just suggesting that open svn branch and Wiki model would help better 3. I'm not a framework critic nor a fan boy. If there is/will be any better framework, I'll be happy to adopt that. I prefer CakePHP for some of the projects and plain PHP for some other projects. 4. For CakePHP, I still believe that Wiki model would be really helpful as for now, majority of good information available on CakePHP are partially through self promotional blogs. A centralized Wiki would be helpful for the developers/users and for the CakePHP itself. Django like credit in Wiki might help, if anyone wants to be credited for the contribution. 5. Look at the recent changeset, not all commits are based on tickets. Not all commits even don't need tickets. I'm not complaining on any of my tickets 6. Open svn branch would again be helpful for the developers. I'm not saying that allowing open access for all svn branches--but to allow access only for a single branch. Selective merging is really easy with diff tools. This might help developers who use branch svn version to have speedy fixes, better unified/centralized hacks/solutions incorporated for their projects (for example, there are lot of solutions posted for real life situations--the situations are common for anyone who build professional projects--but the solutions are different) The quality of the open branch svn will not just be based on unit tests and perception of core team, but would also be based on real life situations/projects--which would be more helpful for the developers. -- <?php echo 'Just another PHP saint'; ?> Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com Blog: http://rajeshanbiah.blogspot.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cake PHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
