Re: Official sources vs. RCVS

[Larry Jones]

Paul Sander writes:
> 
> I seem to recall that the Renegade project was created specifically for the
> reason that the official developers of CVS were unwilling to work with
> Noel and others who needed various bug fixes and features.  At that time,
> (a couple of years ago) the official developers were unresponsive to the
> point of even failing to acknowledge receipt of bug reports initiated by
> send-pr.

Not quite.  Renegade CVS was started by a couple of well-meaning but
misguided people who were frustrated by the traditionally laze faire
CVS development methodology compounded by the delays and uncertainties
of the transition from Cyclic to Source Gear to Open Avenue.  (Anyone
wanting the full story should consult the thread on Regegade CVS in
the list archives at http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/info-cvs/ from April
2000.)  In my opinion, it hasn't done much; it certainly hasn't solved
any of the problems it was intended to.

> Should your statement be interpreted to mean that the official developers
> are now more receptive to such "market-driven" forces?

The developers have always been receptive to market forces to some
extent, but remember that most of us are volunteers with very limited
time.  In general, bug fixes take priority over enhancements and things
that are of personal interest to some developer take precedence over
things that don't.  Things that are of interest to lots of people take
precedence over things that are only of interest to a few, no matter how
intense that interest may be.  Patches are always welcome, but please
see the guidelines in HACKING for advice on strategy and tactics.  (Half
thought out patches that don't quite work right all the time aren't
particularly useful and that seems, in my admittedly biased opinion, to
be what Renegade CVS has ended up specializing in.)  Likewise, new
developers are always welcome (see DEVEL-CVS), but they're expected to
show some long-term dedication to CVS and not just be dilettantes.

-Larry Jones