Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QrEVg-00052T-2A for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:32:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com; helo=mail-ew0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-ew0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1QrEVf-0006Kf-4H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:32:11 +0000 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so947926ewy.34 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.185.132 with SMTP id u4mr2510628eem.185.1313004724889; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grissom.localnet ([91.84.15.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r18sm567146eea.57.2011.08.10.12.32.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Andy Parkins To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:32:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.39-2-686-pae; KDE/4.6.4; i686; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108102032.00373.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (andyparkins[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1QrEVf-0006Kf-4H Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Change to multiple executables? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:32:12 -0000 On Wednesday 10 August 2011 19:41:51 Gavin Andresen wrote: > > To be honest I feel a bit like every change that I (and I've also heard > > this from others) propose is shot down, no matter how well > > formulated. This is actively discouraging developers from joining > > this project. > > Well, to be honest I don't think more developers adding new features > are needed right now-- I think the project's critical needs are more > people testing and helping to fix bugs and scalability issues. (Rant follows; stop reading now) That paragraph reveals a gross misunderstanding of how open source works. People get itches and they want to scratch them. They aren't paid, so they don't necessarilly want to turn up and be told which part they _should_ be working on. The choice is not "bug fix that Gavin wants" or "new feature that New Developer wants", it is "New Feature" or nothing. Of course, nothing forces existing developers to accept these new features; but the incredibly negative attitude on display when any new feature is suggested is not the way to grow a community. The correct way is a mentoring attitude -- offering opinions on how a new developer can get their idea in rather than telling them why it will never happen. > I don't see how dividing efforts between a 'bug fix' and 'development' > branch will help fix the project's critical needs. If we did, I think Again: that's not your call. People will work on what interests them. I've suggested a couple of features both here and on the forum and been shot down in varying degrees every time. Fine, but don't expect that I'm thinking "well I'll become an unpaid bug fixing grunt instead". I don't expect to be appointed head developer because I suggest an idea. I don't even expect anyone else to implement my idea for me. But why should I spend time on my own idea when the feedback is "no", "no", "we've already thought of that", "not needed", "go away", "why not fix some bugs instead"? I'm amazed that John Smith is as polite and persistent as he is looking at the amount of effort he's put in putting a pretty face on the train crash that existed before hand and seems to get no benefit of the doubt for his work. > there would be less pressure to help with the boring bug-fixing and > testing of the bug-fix branch, which I think would be bad. That pressure might be relieved if the community were able to grow a bit, and people felt they had a personal investment. That means loosening the reigns a bit; and perhaps a development branch would be the way to do that while not compromising code quality. I suggest a look at the way git itself is developed; it has the following branches: - master: the latest release + newly accepted features - maint: the latest release + bug fixes only - next: new features planned for inclusion, actively being worked on. Often created by merging "topic" branches from individual developers working on their current itch - pu: crazy stuff; not planned for inclusion, but acting as a staging area for people to show what they're working on Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com