1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QrDj4-00030t-HB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:41:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.42; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pz0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QrDj3-000379-Po
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:41:58 +0000
Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so2275704pzk.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.143.17 with SMTP id q17mr7790197wfd.261.1313001711874;
Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.212.13 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJNQ0stfYFN2YCGq-be5D-XW+81ZkVVM_jHHonSy2OHsNyN1Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJNQ0sudgAnr9hMUMt8grSNTYswunyNnp25Uzw5t17ucxTBoGA@mail.gmail.com>
<1312971289.3253.6.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
<20110810104316.GA30749@ulyssis.org>
<CAJNQ0ssWeU2vgR8XmCyGiZ3UHPv=zjLZEKVM=gqP0ozSC7Wmiw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJNQ0stkZ=iBCJA7E5+LZToe2MjEJnhqWoiUtLcqTGPygSikiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0Yvssr04AeT3B8+Gj43hV=P0Uw6M0f+NBNygnAyruQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJNQ0stfYFN2YCGq-be5D-XW+81ZkVVM_jHHonSy2OHsNyN1Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:41:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T059A+RtJ-Mc8XCX6m3dyF23WZ5jraBLGt1=hvSGn14kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: John Smith <witchspace81@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
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
(gavinandresen[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
0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QrDj3-000379-Po
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:41:58 -0000
> To be honest I feel a bit like every change that I (and I've also heard t=
his
> from others) propose is shot down, no matter how well formulated.=A0 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.
In this particular case, I said I was mildly against it-- if you want
me to switch to supporting it, then reassure me you're willing to do
ALL the work to make it happen. Send me a list of wiki pages you'll
edit to document the change and tell me that you'll be around to help
people rewrite their backup scripts.
> I think it would be better to switch to two branches, like most other ope=
n
> source projects I've worked with.
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
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.
--=20
--
Gavin Andresen
|
