Re: Queries about release specifications [Was: who gets in and why]
- From: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- To: Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>
- Cc: Andrew Coulam <aigiskos yahoo com>, Glynn Foster <glynn foster sun com>, Kevin Vandersloot <kfv101 psu edu>, Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>, GNOME Desktop List <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Queries about release specifications [Was: who gets in and why]
- Date: 30 Aug 2002 12:32:20 +0100
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 05:05, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> Poor code is reflected by instability and feature problems.
Worse, it's un-maintainable - maintainability has to be our no. 1
focus; if it's not possible to fix XYZ because the interactions are so
spaghetti like that they're incomprehensible except by person BAA it's a
ticking timebomb waiting to go off.
> Layering in beaurocracy to verify something that would get weeded on
> other criteria seems like a waste of precious resources.
Problem is - as we see by umpteen examples it doesn't work that way -
people get seduced by partially working feature/bug riddled apps, with
bad UIs, and evil code.
> If the community consensus is that a app is viable, then electing a
> collection of 'benevolent code fascists' to override them will not
> help. Who would want to be put in the position to judge the code ?
I think there is a perspective problem here; I'm talking about the
process adding apps from 5th toe into whatever the 'core' is called
these days. Who said anything about election ? judging ? etc. It's not
fascism to say "Your code needs fixing in these ways before it can be
> Lets try to keep the community fun. If you think an app is crap say
> so with a smile :-) People will listen. Don't elect a committee to
> do it.
That's just crazy; the thread started with "Who gets in and why"
the alternative proposals for getting stuff into the core go:
a) Release team says what goes, in private
b) The GEP process is used [ and incidentally we do some code
review at the same time ].
You tell me which one of these processes has an (un)'elected' committee
Ultimately it seems to me we're arguing semantics - the badge 'In the
Gnome Core' is not to be haphazardly applied to things. That is the crux
- and I believe that sound technical review by eclectic authors, in
public, using the GEP is the only way to achieve that.
mmeeks gnu org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
] [Thread Prev