Well, well, well . . . out of the smoke a phoenix arises . . .
I am in contact "with those who know what they are doing" with a mind to
try to set up an "adopt a bug" scheme. But the real b*gger is how on
earth to
do some sort of triage on outstanding bugs and find out which ones:
1. Are sortable-outable.
and of those:
2. Which ones actually justify time, money and effort.
Once that has been done (not simple at all), I'm in favour of running
an Indiegogo or similar fund-raiser to get funds to sort out bugs,
with support badges rather like the one for the Fund-Raiser.
I think it is an important idea to have either individual sponsors or
groups of them to support specific bugs so that there will not be
any complaints about promises not being honoured.
Your questions are painful and pertinent.
Possibly, just possibly, LiveCode could offer internships to students from
universities in Edinburgh and round about: but whether those students would
have the depth of understanding of how LiveCode's underpinnings work to
do any good is another problem.
The idea of an "auction block" could work in 2 ways:
1. Donors would bid to support fixing a specific bug.
2. Would-be bug fixers would bid for the job of fixing the bug.
Just as long as the whole thing doesn't end up like a slave market in
Jamaica.
On 5.10.19 20:31, prothero--- via use-livecode wrote:
Folks,
The donations to fix specific bugs is a notable idea. But what comes to mind is
where the programming effort to fix the funded bug will come from. Presumably,
you are thinking it will come from mothership staff programmers. I don’t know,
but suspect the staff programmers are already busily working on tasks
supporting existing efforts. Suppose bugfix A, funded by donations, takes 40hrs
to fix. This 40 hrs will take 40 hrs from somewhere else.
So, my basic question is: can the time management strategies of the mothership
accommodate these special bugfix jobs? Also, if staff already allot significant
time to bugfix efforts, perhaps community votes for highest priority bugs would
be effective. On the other hand, if a high priority bugfix can be funded by a
client with a special need and the capability of funding it fully (I think that
already happens), that’s also to the good.
I guess what I’m saying is that, if you want the mothership to do the fixing,
they should be giving input on what might also work for them. Alternatively,
maybe there are programmers in the LC community who have the skills to tackle
some of the bugs and will, if they are supported financially. In that vein,
perhaps a system of bidding for bug fixes on the “auction block” could be
developed. Payment would be made after tests confirmed the solution, and it
could be incorporated into future LC versions.
Those are just some thoughts, maybe useful, maybe not.
Best to all,
Bill
William Prothero
http://es.earthednet.org
On Oct 5, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode
<use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
I have a very humble proposal to move things forward in more positive manner,
and entirely eliminate ALL negativity.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
