Switching from CVS to Subversion: test svn repo available

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:37:07PM -0400, David Hampton wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 20:37 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> 
> > Maybe that's a reasonable criteria for giving someone commit access to
> > the OneTrueBuild.  But, that's not reasonable criteria for giving
> > someone access to convenient SCM.  That's like saying: We love for
> > people to join us on this trip across country.  We know the best way
> > is this train we're on, so we see if they can keep up for a while on
> > bicycles, and if they can, we let them on the train.
> 
> Your analogies are tired and they aren't winning you any friends.

Hey, I haven't used any analogies for days! :) Have I?  But I
certainly don't need any more enemies.

> Clearly you have different core beliefs from the rest of the developers,

I guess so.

> and continual sniping is not going to change anyone's mind.

I really didn't intend the analogy, or the email to be a snipe.  I
apologize for offending anyone.

> Yours or theirs or mine.  My job as a developer is to provide useful
> and quality code for the users of Gnucash, not spread SCM to the
> masses.

Fair enough.

> 
> > I've spent more time refreshing out-of-tree patches that I have
> > actually developing code! (ok, not really, but a LOT of time, it's a
> > PITA.)
> 
> You should have spoken up the moment you saw Neil's patches go in and
> said to yourself "that's not related to the gtk2 port."

To be fair, I didn't *know* they weren't related to G2.  I guess
that's my ignorance but I'm not sure why noticing that should be /my/
sole responsibility.

> 
> > It's pretty off-putting.  I think, ideally, *anyone* who wants
> > to should be on the SCM train.  Let everybody go as fast as we know
> > how.  If people think it's best to require some test of endurance in
> > order to write to the OneTrueBuild, then so be it.  
> 
> Its not an endurance test.  I for one want to see the quality of code
> that people write before I give them free reign to play in the "One True
> Build".

Makes sense.

> 
> > Personally, I think code should stand on its own, but whatever.
> 
> I agree with you there.  Code should stand on its own, but I insist on
> knowing that its quality code.  I'd rather take the time to look at a
> new developer's patches up front than to have the program blow up in
> strange and mysterious ways, and then have to track down problems after
> the fact.  Been there.  Done that with customers yelling at my manager.
> Don't want to do it again. 

Ok.

> 
> > > and old devs leave as they find other projects to work on.  The main
> > > issue is that ALL the core devs got burned out after 1.8 and there
> > > weren't any fringe devs to pull up in the ranks.  
> > 
> > You make it sound like you believe that the derth of fringe devs is
> > some random, inexplicable circumstance.  Surely you have some theory
> > (or maybe knowledge) for *why* a large, popular project went from a
> > healthy dev rate to barely alive?
> 
> Define healthy dev rate.  In the four years that I've been associated
> with the project its never had more than a handful of core developers.
> None of the core developers are still around from when I started working
> with Gnucash, except for Derek.  I've gone from guy submitting patches
> to the build system to primary developer.  Josh started sometime after
> me and wrote the entire scheduled transaction system.  Neil's come in
> and redesigned a core part of the engine.  We have the same number of
> core devs as in 2002, just different ones.
> 
> > Or are you convinced that the fundamental impediment to new devs is
> > code complexity?
> 
> Yes.  And the fact that no-one is willing to learn Scheme.  (Can't stand
> it myself, but its what we have.)  The amount of scheme is diminishing,
> but I doubt it will ever go away completely.
> 
> > Or do you just want to agree to disagree on this?
> 
> Yes.

Ok.

-chris

> 
> David
> 
>