I don't think you see, Steve, that this sardonic cuteness misses the whole point. While you seem to think you have it all going on, this in fact is inane. No one in their right mind without some political in or position would take much time to contribute to Struts, because the process is completely bankrupt.
On 3/24/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have an idea. Why don't we publish the source code to Struts so that > absolutely anyone can contribute to the project. You are right that > we'll need a review process for all those contributions. So why don't we > require all incoming code to be reviewed by at least one experienced > developer before it is added to the code base. After a while, developers > will earn a level of trust and we can relax the review requirement to > only happen after the code is updated. > > Thanks for the advice. We should implement this new process right away. > > Steve > > Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > Dave Newton wrote: > >> Dakota Jack wrote: > >> > >>> I flat don't believe this. Who, what, where, when, etc? > >>> > >> > >> > >> This isn't me (although I did fix an essentially identical bug in an > >> internal webapp at Morgan Stanley (who), an Action instance variable > >> (what), in Morristown (where), spring 2004 (when), because they paid me > >> (why), by putting the data into a synchronized map (how) although I > >> believe eventually they changed the structure of the app to eliminate > >> the need for that (it was a quick fix for an emergency problem: "this > >> works almost all the time, but under load we occasionally get corrupted > >> data"-a-thon). > >> > >> http://www.thedailywtf.com/ > >> > >> Today's is "the cost of static." > > > > > > I just visited the above link and read the article and I don't see how > > this can be presented as evidence against a more open collaborative > > model. Basically it's the story of a bug. Somebody made a mistake. > > People will make mistakes regardless. Also, the bug occurred, as far > > as I can see, in a closed source commercial codebase, so it's not > > clear to me how this is relevant at all. > > > > I have said repeatedly at this point that I assume that code committed > > by newbie committers would be reviewed. In principle, a bug like the > > one described in that article would be caught at that point. But > > another point about this is that having more people in the code could > > decrease the mean life expectancy of such bugs because of the > > phenomenon of more eyeballs. > > > > Jonathan Revusky > > -- > > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > > >> > >> Anybody who thinks anyone should have commit access... feel free to > walk > >> around tdwtf, marvel, and pat yourself on the back for being better > than > >> some of the stories there (I hope :) > >> > >> Dave > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
