On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Thomas Hervé <therve@free.fr> wrote:
Well, that logic is a bit flawed though: you're kind of saying that we shouldn't use a better tool because it may bring us more contributors than we can handle. At the end of the day, we would still use a better tool though.
No, I'm saying that given limited resources, addressing the giant piles of unused code we have (and figuring out how new code won't end up in the attic) seems like a higher priority. Using better tools is always a good idea, and if you'd like to argue that github means patches are less
Le 01/07/2011 16:42, Itamar Turner-Trauring a écrit : likely
to be abandoned that's a good argument to make.
I'm arguing for a broader look at what our development process problems are, and that perhaps efforts should be directed elsewhere.
While I sympathize with what you're saying, this sounds kind of orthogonal to me. Sure, we can do better at handling contributions. But it's an opensource project, everybody does whatever he wants mostly (in the frame that the project sets).
Saying to Laurens that we have limited "resources" and that he should do something else doesn't mean that this second task will be done. But it surely means that first one won't.
-- Thomas
I'd say that's a safe bet. -- cheers lvh