Hi Robert,
The fact is that right now, there's one person with commit access.
Errr no. This is not fact.
There are several developers with commit access to svn/trunk and
svn/branches. In the case of svn/trunk those with commit access are
for specific portions that they are the lead author to.
You know full well I meant commit access to the core on svn trunk.
That's the main point right now.
I will state again. svn access does not scale like testing and
debugging does. You can't scale up commit access and retain quality,
consistency and productivity. Might I suggest reading a text like the
Mythical Man Month will give you a few pointers about the delicate
balance of development scaling.
Believe it or not, I have read that and I agree with most of its points.
BUT I didn't suggest scaling up to thousands of people. I suggested two
or three more. And taking any point written in a book as an absolute is
risky.
You conveniently ignore my point about other open source projects. What
did you understand that they all ignored? I guess I should just expect
Boost, Blender, all those successful projects that have multiple people
committing to their central svn to fail tomorrow, they can't possibly
prosper a day more... (please take that as what it is, it's sarcasm
designed to make you think about what other projects do, nothing more)
One of the pioneering open source projects is Mozilla (once Netscape,
then Mozilla, then Firefox and Thunderbird and others). I've had the
chance to submit a few fixes to that project and see how they handled
them. They have a group of reviewers, one of which gets assigned to your
patch / bug report, depending on their area of expertise and the part of
the code your patch touches. If the patch touches multiple areas,
multiple reviewers get assigned. The reviewer(s) approve the patch (or
it goes through a few iterations with the submitter before being
approved), and then a second reviewer who doesn't know about the problem
has to check it and approve it too, and finally the first reviewer can
commit it. If a patch gets committed without this two-level review, then
it gets backed out because it hasn't been approved correctly.
I'm not suggesting we go to that level of organized process, I'm just
saying that if that process has worked for them, then taking bits of it
and adapting them could work for us. And saying that scaling up svn
(revision control - they used CVS at the time) access doesn't work is
just false.
I have trouble believing you want to keep all that pressure on your
shoulders. Believe it or not even you have broken the build and
introduced bugs too. There must be one or two other people in whom you
have some confidence, and that you could include and give some
submissions to review...
J-S
--
______________________________________________________
Jean-Sebastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com
http://www.cm-labs.com/
http://whitestar02.webhop.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
