Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Canonical and the requirements of users

[David Allouche]

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 10:44 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> David Allouche write:
> 
>  > Baz development was not driven by the requirements of the imports.
>  > The import system was actually quite indifferent to baz changes,
>  > except for some performance bugfixes.
> 
>  > It was driven by requirement of users, from the company and from the
>  > community, and by community contributions.
> 
> Users, notoriously, make collectively incoherent demands and it is the
> job of good maintainers not to just cede to every demand but to chose
> a path that makes sense from a broader perspective.

This reply is slightly off-topic, so I'll try to refocus the thread.

I was clarifying that baz was development was not driven, or even
influenced, by the need of the CVS and SVN imports done at Canonical, as
tla was roughly good enough.

The only "I need this new version" situation I remember was a fix for a
performance bug with creating cachedrevs on very long signed branches.

Most of the other changes were net added work for me with no benefit to
this specific task.
-- 
                                                            -- ddaa

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part