Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> >> How many of your changes need to actually hit the repo in less than 24
> hours?
> > Depends on whether you think rapidly clearing bugs is important. I do.
>
> Why is that important? My 24 hours was a guess at the long tail. Who is
> going to notice if you fix a bug but it doesn't appear in HEAD until one of
> several other people respond and poke a button on a web form? It may take
> another mailing list to help things along.
Prompt response to a user-visible bug is the case I was thinking of.
Hans Meyer's rash of small problems with ntpq, for example, all pretty
trivial once chracterized. He was being so helpful that I put a high value
on addressing his issiues immediately, giving him rapid confirmation that
we cared about his issues and were on top of them.
To a lesser extent this applies to anything that arrives on the issue
tracker, I mean, as opposed to long-term development work. I want us
to get a reputation for respomsiveness, and "Fix waiting on review"
doesn't have quite the same oomph as "Fix pushed."
> > I'm really, really reluctant to consent to a policy that increases my
> > process friction. My experiences with the consequences of that kind of
> > choice have never been positive.
>
> How important is your individual way of doing things? Would you be willing
> to tolerate some inconvenience if that made the rest of us more productive?
In principle, yes. I'd need to be persuaded that the net was positive -
that the rest of you got sped up more than I got slowed down. Past
experience makes me skeptical of such claims.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
