There are several different ways that issues like this are handled in open source projects:
1) Linux - people submitting code to Linus for inclusion in the kernel are subject to his review -- if he tells you to rewrite it, you'd better or it won't get in.
2) Mozilla - each area of the code has a module owner who gets the final say on technical decisions on the code. Disputes with a module owner can
3) Apache - there is really no notion of code ownership, in fact we actively discourage code ownership because we feel that it creates a barrier to the developement of a diverse and growing developer community. If you are granted commit access to a piece of code, you are generally granted access to the entire codebase. Disputes are resolved in the context of the entire community (really the portion that cares enough to get involved).
The choice of which method we use to resolve these issues is part of a larger question regarding the community norms/governance of the project.
Ted
On Oct 20, 2005, at 10:20 AM, John Anderson wrote: I've lived in worlds 1, 2 and 3, and in my experience 1 has worked best.
The guy whose working on the code needs to feel that he has ownership, which is important for his motivation. In the long run good and bad ideas often sort themselves out through use and time, so even if the owner chooses the wrong choice, he'll often change his mind if experience bears out a bad decision, which turn out to be an important learning experience.
I've almost never seen the owner abuse the privilege of overruling a reviews opinion, that actually hurt the project.
John
Mike Taylor wrote: Earlier today Heikki and I reached the point where we could not find common ground on the result of a review I requested from him about some changes to the Makefiles. I think that one of the review points he raised is not a concern (a "style" issue to be exact) where as he thinks the code is wrong because of duplication.
The exact code involved is not the question I'm raising right now, but rather this is something we haven't considered in our review process - what happens when the owner of the patch/code and the reviewer of the patch/code just cannot agree?
After talking about this with Heikki, he asked that I submit it as a discussion and vote to the dev list.
If the reviewer and the owner disagree, which of the following apply:
1. Owner's opinion prevails
2. Reviewer's opinion prevails
3. It's put to a vote before an impartial body - most of the time that body will be the dev list
4. <insert alternative solution here>
thanks,
---
Bear
Build and Release Engineer
Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osafoundation.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://code-bear.com
PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111 D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
---- Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF) PGP Fingerprint: 1003 7870 251F FA71 A59A CEE3 BEBA 2B87 F5FC 4B42
| 