On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 11:18:27AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On the other hand, we do suffer from the locked project problem (the
> recent recursive query debacle is a perfect example).
Maybe, but we don't have the extreme form. Patches have been submitted
by people other than the ones saying they'd do it, and no-one got their
head bitten off for it. Indeed, the original person was often grateful
that it wasn't their problem anymore.
One thing about the discussion about locking was where we wanted a more
formal locking strategy (keeping a list). I think this is the wrong
approach. If you want some feature that hasn't seen any recent
discussion, *do it*, don't wait around seeing if someone else will do
it. This was in the article also:
... there was no sense that anyone else "owned" a piece
of Linux (although de facto "ownership" has happened in some parts);
if you didn't produce, Linus would use someone else's code. If you
wanted people to use your stuff, you had to keep moving.
I really think that's a better idea than tracking who is doing what.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.