On 14 oct. 05, at 09:13, Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 10/14/05, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> In the simplest terms possible: What's digging me is that if we  
>> want to
>> solve the harvesting problem we need to scale it. And if we want to
>> scale it we need maintainers, and maintainers need to be able to take
>> ownership of their respective code. And that the current harvesting
>> process actively destroys that sense of ownership.
>>
>
> Just a little metoo - I often disagree with Andreas, but on this one I
> couldn't agree more.
>
> In my eyes, the harvesting process should be an integration process.
> If the integration fails, the package isn't integrated but bounced
> back to the owners so they can fix their stuff. If it is possible,
> together with a proposed patch, but I think it can't be so that a
> third party patches *and publishes* my code without having to consult
> me. Sure, legally etcetera it is all sound, but from that very second
> I have the right to see the stuff you published as a fork, and you can
> purty well do anything you like with it but I'm not going to run.
>
> Big question is - how do we get there, fast?

As I said we would be more than happy to only focus on the compiler  
and other parts.
This is just because there are so many parts without maintainers that  
we get in trouble.
We never consider MC, VMMaker....fixes we wait that they get integrated.

Stef