I'm inclined to agree. If a specific committer is working on a large change and doesn't want to be disturbed by other commits, well that is what cvs branches are for.
--Josh At 12:30 on 03/01/2002 EST, Bryce Denney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Drew Northup wrote: > > The _wonderful_ US of A has some messy laws when it comes to software. > > Don't worry too much about the details of how I'll pull this off--that's > > my problem ;-). For now I'm the only one doing _any_ cvs committing > > anyway. That clears up some problems there. And yes, I do know who to > > talk to about setting up a new non-US hosted site--so that is already > > being worked on. > > > Especially for a project which is done in one's spare time, I strongly > recommend giving cvs write access to a number of interested and competent > people. Then progress can continue even when the primary developer(s) are > unable to find the time. > > It's got to be a balance between two extremes > (a) one person controls the cvs and publishes a readonly copy, and > (b) so many people are contributing without adequate communication that > code quality goes down. > > IMHO, plex86 has tended toward one extreme, and that's why the project > came to such an abrupt stop when Kevin was not able to continue on it. > > Regards, > Bryce > >