You can separate both functions, i.e. development or patching and code review/quality control. The linux kernel is beginning to be a good example, where you have: - Linus (vanilla) tree as a reference value (think Fed Reserve) - Andrew Morton (mm) patches, making it a higher risk (think Dow Jones) - Full preemption and other special or highly experimental patches (think Nasdaq or even Hedge Funds) - Hardware manufacturers trying to get their code in, to get more wide support for their hardware. - Other people suggesting improvements around (I've sent three typos recently) just because they don't want to maintain their needed pieces.
The Linux kernel is a great process example if you aren't trying to actually cooperate in the development process or build a *real* brand. Linus views RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, etc. as the ones who are responsible for dealing with users. It's also a very ego-centric model - perhaps some developers like that. I don't care for it at all. -- justin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
