On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 16:29, Jamie Heilman wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Personally I prefer that someone who wants to introduce new features (even small ones, like API additions) into the core do it via their own committer privileges and thus sign up to maintain it for the rest of
Yeah well... we've been over that before, I refuse to sign that agreement. If that means my patches go ignored for eternity, so be it, but it really seems like ZC is just cutting of their nose to spite their face.
Can't help you much there. FWIW, I don't work for ZC anymore and I'm still not willing to sponsor the wholesale introduction of that code either, so I don't think it's necessarily a ZC problem. You could say that the community of people with CVS contributor access is cutting off their nose despite their faces, I guess that would make sense (with the usual caveats of time vs. benefit).
The reason I think people don't jump on collector issues like this one is because of the natural "he who touched it last owns it" policy of the core code. I own enough of Zope 2 core code to make me uncomfortable at this point; owning more just isn't very attractive to me unless the upside is very up.
Thats an unfortunate situation to be sure, I don't have any solutions to offer as its not a technical issue. All I can say is that we know the code doesn't care who touched it last, its going to break or work regardless. The sooner the community accepts that, the sooner we can get out of the rut and make some more progress.
Actually it would be helpful if patches that fix bugs came in as small and easily-understood diffs. That would make the intent clearer and would make it more likely to be sponsorable (at least by me, anyway). Having high-quality, small, clear bugfix diffs waiting to apply on regular bugdays would help move us forward a lot, especially on maintenance branches. - C