RE: [Simulavr-devel] Discussion: how to proceed withthedeveloment on GIT repo?

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:57 AM
> To: address@hidden; Onno Kortmann
> Cc: address@hidden; Weddington, Eric; 
> address@hidden; 'Joerg Wunsch'
> Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Discussion: how to proceed 
> withthedeveloment on GIT repo?
> 
> On Tue Sep 29 14:02 , Onno Kortmann  sent:
> 
> >What is the official review process for patches here? I 
> asked about my changes 
> >on the ML but as essentially nothing happened and everything 
> seemed to be 
> >dead here, Thomas and I proceeded.
> 
> Send patches to ML.
> Wait for consensus.
> Clean up blood.
> Commit.
> 

LOL!

The simulavr project is, for better or worse, very informal. Joerg and I don't 
really do any development. We're just more in a "caretaker" role. I know that 
Joel Sherrill was doing more of the development recently. Because of his 
experience I deferred to him about the review and commit process. However, I 
don't know if Joel wants to remain active in this project or not.

I can't speak for Joerg, but I imagine that he and I are very flexible about 
the direction of the project, as well as the review and commit process. I think 
that our major goals are very simple:
- Encourage active development by community members
- Ensure that the project "progresses" (vaguely defined)

I don't care how the project progresses, meaning that I don't have any say in 
architecture or direction, or how a particular feature should be implemented. 
My only personal concern is that it continues to build for, and run on, Windows 
either Cygwin or MinGW (preferrably MinGW). I think that no one wants that the 
project go "backwards", meaning that it continues to build on the same 
platforms, that there aren't any serious regressions. Yes, I understand that 
there is very little testing in place to ensure this, so I have to trust that 
the developers keep this in mind when working on this project.

This is why I'm more than happy to add people to the project as developers or 
admins, as long as these overarching goals are kept in mind. I don't think that 
consensus would be that hard to reach in getting features added.

Honetly though, I think that the continued discussion about which VCS to use is 
a big distraction. It's more important to move simulavr forward, and the VCS is 
just a tool to help us keep track of the code. I don't care which one is used: 
CVS, SVN, or git. There are tradeoffs wherever we go. If git is chosen, then 
more time would have to be spent changing over the VCS instead of working on 
simulavr.

Eric