Maintenance question

[Roland Illig]

bulia byak wrote:
> [...]
> Personally, I hope that these policies can be relaxed somewhat. People
> who want to help must have an easy way to do so. For example, patches
> should be reviewed, but it's really frustrating to wait for this
> review forever. Besides, I think it's only core or security-related
> patches that really need pre-commit review; for UI tweaks, much better
> feedback can be received from users of the CVS version than from a
> single reviewer, and it's also much faster for other developers to do
> cvs update and test than to apply a patch. I also think that the
> project must be more liberal in granting developer access, because
> working via patches and not having up-to-the-minute CVS access is very
> frustrating.

That's also my point of view. Some other projects I know (pkgsrc-wip, 
MoinMoin, buildtool, and my own towers-of-hanoi) have a $project-cvs 
mailing list that gets a mail on every CVS commit. Especially for 
pkgsrc-wip, there are often comments from the reviewers that go to the 
$project-discuss mailing list.

> [...] And of course, it's important to make releases more
> often, so that a wider audience can test the new stuff. We could have
> a stable release and a series of testing releases, so that those who
> want stability would be able to stick with something that is well
> tested.

I also agree to this. I have been thinking about an mc-unstable CVS 
branch where everyone may commit freely. But I like the above idea 
(mc-cvs mailing list) much more.

Roland