Jonathan Revusky wrote: > I already am spending too much time on this [...]
Agreed. > 2. I know that there is significant animosity towards me here [...] My animosity towards you is from years ago, actually; I won't speak for anybody else. > From whence???? From whence???? Is the Shakespearean festival nigh? Ooo! A zinger! Forsooth! > It's just mind-boggling to be trying to answer this kind of question > really.... I imagine that it is, for you... trying to imagine how an open-source project that was developed for somebody else's use might not be obligated to listen to anybody else. >> It appears as though you believe that if someone is willing and able to >> pitch in that they should have commit rights, which is not really the >> same thing. > As a practical matter, it basically means giving people commit rights. > Trying to let people work on stuff while keeping them at arm's length > just is unlikely to work for long. If you're going to let someone do > some work, yeah, you have to open the door and let them in. I really don't believe we're so far apart on this: I think the bar for commiting to Struts is too high as well. At the same time, I would definitely _not_ give commit rights to anybody that asked for them, and the project would be better off for it. Even in the limited scope of this mailing list I have seen some pretty frightening code--I would _not_ want the authors of said code to be able to inject similar code into the project, and I would _not_ want to have to surf the repository regularly to remove or fix it. > At the moment, I think it is mostly because this whole dysfunctional > scene exerts a morbid fascination on me. It's actually funny in a very > dark humor sort of way, you know. On this we are in perfect agreement :) Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
