Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development
From: vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:56:04 -0500
Reply-to: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Raimar Falke wrote:

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:20:17PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:

<snip: FreeCiv's development model>

More importantly, why are we still discussing this?  :-)  We had this
very same discussion a number of months ago, and I'm sure that
discussion wasn't the first of its kind either!

What was the outcome of the last one?

As I recall, everyone (or at least everyone who expressed an opinion, which may or may not have included the maintainers) was in favor of a more open development model. I believe the idea was to recruit a few more maintainers - but this never happened (AFAIK).

I will again suggest what I suggested then: the current CVS tree can become the "development" tree. CVS branches can be used judiciously to fork off "stable" trees - for instance, rather than go into a "freeze" before a release, just make a "stable" branch which is frozen (except for bugfixes), and make beta releases from this branch to get feedback. The branch can stick around after the release, so that further bugfixes can make it in and a new (small) release can easily be made that includes them (of course, this could really screw up the version numbers).

Essential to this process is that the development branch is opened up more - more maintainers are needed. Right now the manpower is unequally distributed, so that many more patches are being made than the maintainers can handle (I realize this is because several of the maintainers are currently busy elsewhere, but that really doesn't change the issue). The current lag time between patch submission and patch acceptance is so long that any decent-length project (like the general topologies change, or the AI rewrite) may take longer than a release cycle, or longer than the author(s) are willing to spend on it. I think you'll find that if the lag time drops, more patches will be submitted and some of the estranged patch-writers can be brought back into the fold.

One alternative is to create a separate CVS tree to become the "development" tree. More maintainers would be granted access to this tree, and patches would be accepted with a much lower lag time. But I think this would lead to the development tree quickly becoming more stable _and_ feature-rich than the stable tree, which could easily result in a complete fork of the project (unless the development tree completely replaces the stable tree and we start over, which is very unlikely IMO).


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]