No, 2.0 was a moving target because there was lots of active
development and things were getting rapidly fixed and rolled into
tarballs for our beta testers to pound on. There were easily 3 times
as many developers working on 2.0 than there are now.
Moving Target >> Stagnation
Bill's changes were numerous but each was individually reviewable.
The RTC alternative is to post that patches, find 2 other buddies to
hold hands with while crossing the street, look both ways, hold your
breath, then commit the big megapatch. Version control is your friend,
use it.
-aaron
On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 09:11:56AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think that RTC has a place, but too often RTC is used as a club
to slow down development. Small changes that could easily
be made once the code has been committed instead result in
cycles of "Wouldn't it be best to do this?" and another
round of patch-vote commences.
All fine in theory, but wrowe who is the one suggesting CTR on
those two
modules certainly wasn't suggesting small changes - there was what
- 20
commits in the proxy/cache code the other day?
The real trick is how you define the difference between small,
relatively safe changes and complete rewrites of large chunks of code.
2.0 took very long to settle because it was very much a moving
target, I
would hate for the same to keep happening with a 2.2 release.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
