![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/01aa7d6d4db83982a2f6dd363d0ee0f3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thanks for all the excellent feedback folks!
On May 2, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Fil wrote:
when I tried to do some work on Mailman, a while ago (a few years, in fact), I was not put off by the (then) CVS system used, but more by the fact that it seemed very difficult to get write priviledges (I didn't insist enough either, though I got the GNU assignment papers); and by the fact that the GNU requirements are quite strict, which lead me to wonder what was really "mine" in the patch I would have liked to offer (as it was inspired in part by someone else's patch).
I read a blog entry by Ian Bicking about this subject, which I think
he wrote back in 2005. He also pointed out that write privileges are
a big sticking point for community participation in code development,
to which I agree. However, he also concluded that dvcs's are /bad/
for open source because they encourage private branches, and
everything should be done in the open.
I agree that we should strive for maximal openness, but I don't agree
that dvcs's necessarily make things less open. I think it's entirely
possible they make things /more/ open. There's certainly nothing
preventing anyone from publishing their own dvcs branches, perhaps
even competing with the main line. While I don't want to encourage
forks of my own projects, the potential for increased competition
does keep us honest. And I think interested ideas that folks like
you have Fil, can better compete in the marketplace when they are
just as first class as the main branch. IOW, having your own
branches instead of patches means that the successful ones should be
able to garner more community support, thus improving the likelihood
that the main line will accept them. So I think the jury is still
out on whether dvcs's increase overall openness or decrease it. I'm
putting my money on the former.
Of course, I think it /will/ make our lives harder in some ways. As
we've seen, folks like cPanel have their own forks that they modify,
and then their users come looking to us for support, which we can't
give them. Having more public branches out there will increase our
support costs. We may need to be more careful about blessing the
official branches and making it clear (on web page footers and such)
which is being used.
All that being said, the plight that you, Fil, and others go through,
and the desire on my part to open up the development process more, is
a big driving factor for me finally getting off my ass and doing
something about it. Moving to a dvcs is the first step.
The ticket system at Sourceforge is/was almost unusable.
That's a side issue, and one I whole-hearted agree with. Remember
that Atlassian has provided us with free hosted Jira, which is just
waiting for us. The blocker there is that neither I, nor my contact
at Atlassian, has had time to complete the SF export and Jira
import. A case of e-beers and a year's worth of FLOSS karma goes to
whoever volunteers to help make this happen.
So, in the end, I have my own little patch on my personal SVN server, which of course almost no one has read, and which evidently got outdated, and, well, will stay in that state until I find the time to upgrade it again, compare all by hand and test.
I'm not sure a new versioning system can help for this kind of problem, but if it can, I'm all for it (though I don't really fancy learning yet another versioning system, as I'm very happy with SVN for my developments).
I don't think there's any controversy that moving to a dvcs will be
an overall win for all of us. Certainly learning bzr was pretty
easy, an hg looks just as easy. (More on that next.)_
Not really an answer, and a bit off-topic, sorry. :) HTH anyway
Cheers,
- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBRjny4nEjvBPtnXfVAQKV8QQAjnnaA+szCnJaCRmotjELMRVyIzdtpOzi 8grfKrtOgOYhWtIjwwfGyyoT/YsiZtWRs6gOtzh2XMLW2yg0K/f2xg/ibtgcKYUm NQN27V/xiV4pug9to8mgSb1gtUiV5kWC8+tr0Tra+Hb5hmGKg6iIh974qWt9zmc6 HKADJcCtNEI= =gFwp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----