>>
>>
>
> The point in the above is not about anyone's particular change but  
> a generic expression of disgust about a process that actively  
> destroys the necessary sense of ownership in code. Put simply, it  
> means: If something is "my code" then "you" can't rewrite it over  
> the top of my head. The owner of the code *has* to be involved in  
> the process. If the owner isn't involved, then he/she/they no  
> longer own that code.
>

totally agree with you.
As soon as alex is over with his PhD and get a new job (good chance  
for that), I would like to have a really working package browser with
license, maintainer..... and all that
But this does not work on big packages that were not intended to work  
as packages.


> Meaning that the current and past harvesting process, where fixes  
> get through despite  nobody who has any relation to the code in  
> question is looking at the changes is actually making the situation  
> worse, because any time you do this you destroy the sense of  
> ownership a bit more[*].
>
> The only reason I used the chess game as an example for this  
> process is because I wrote it and because I noticed how the code  
> changed over the years (without any guide or harvester *ever*  
> talking to me).
>

I do not know what really happened there. But you could have review  
the fixes proposed by the guy and pulled up to stop sign!



> [*] This is also what I mean when I talk about the current process  
> competing with development in packages. The fact of the matter is  
> that Stefane and Marcus actively destroy the sense of ownership in  
> the packages by having their "private 3.9a versions" and happily  
> making changes to those packages locally in the 3.9a repository.  
> Sorry, this simply won't fly.
>

First as harvester we try to do our best so that good stuff do not  
get lost.
     for example, we asked
             - the guy refactoring PluggableListMorph to check how  
his work could be integrated in 3.9
             - same for keymapping
             - same for BrowserPreferences
             - same.....

The key problem we faced in the past is that we were relying on code  
own by somebody that was not reacting to our emails and WE WERE  
STUCK!!!!
so any package that is central to the image should be read or write only