2007/7/3, Norbert Hartl <norbert at hartl.name>:
> On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 19:19 +0200, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> > 2007/7/2, Michael Rueger <michael at impara.de>:
> > > Damien Cassou wrote:
> > >
> > > > What about a 100% free access to the official repository? Everyone
> > >
> > > Oh, you mean software development by anarchy?
> > >
> > > Great idea...
> >
> > Yeah, works pretty well for Seaside. A Squeak package several people
> > make a living of.
> >
> Sorry, phillipe, I don't agree.

On which part? That it can work? That it works well for Seaside? That
it would work well for Squeak? That it is one size fits all? I only
claimed the second.

> I like the open source way of doing
> things (I'm doing it for over 10 years now) but there are problems.
> Taking seaside as an example is not a good comparsion. There are
> 3 to 4 developers in average which contribute to the repository with
> one unofficial leader which is Lukas. That is more the way a project
> is organized from the top. As long as very few people are contributing
> and one which is reviewing the changes and integrates them into the
> trunk everything is fine. Furthermore the seaside developers are more
> open to change seaside the way they like.

Well very few people are actually expressing concrete ways in which
they would have Seaside changed. There are some general "grand ideas"
but almost nothing concrete.

> I think you need just a few more developers changing code slightly
> more often that code reviewing and integration is rendered impossible.

I question that. I don't see how a more heavyweight and formal process
would do anything to reduce the amount of work that a reviewer had to
do. Quite the opposite.

If the work is too big then that simply means that a lot of
development would happen. This is not the case for any of the Squeak
Image packages.

> This leads very quick to a situation where code reviewing is fulltime
> job and I doubt anyone is willing to take it. If there is nobody which
> does this work it leads to a situation where each developer is his
> own branch including from others only what he needs/likes.

If you are referring to Monticello there the situation is that the
"maintainer"  does no work at all. The amount of changes would very
well be reviewable in an afternoon. Especially if it was done a year
ago. But there is simply no one in charge.

> And we have a lot of squeak branches right now.

That's because nobody is in charge who cares. Not because of the sheer
amount of changes is too big.

Just that nobody gets this wrong. I am not accusing anybody, I am not
saying anything should/must change. It's everyones good right to do
his own private fork of Squeak and everyone is free to do whatever the
wants with his time.

Cheers
Philippe

> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Norbert
>
>
>