[resending to list, as originally replied just to lsvkne@]
lsuvkne@onemodel.org writes:
> If there are no big surprises discovered beyond what was
> described there, I wonder whether it might be possible to scope the
> effort now. Surprises being the big wildcard, given the complex history
> of this issue.
I don't think the scoping is trivial; I certainly couldn't do it now.
FWIW, in IRC earlier tonight one developer said he thought the $7500
figure was off by an order of magnitude. I don't know if that's right
or not (it probably is, as he's an expert in this problem), but
statements like that point to the importance of not skimping on the
scope/design stages! :-)
> Also (though I guess this will be more applicable later on...), I would
> like to think about #4 as being integration of a patch into trunk
> (including tests written), after having had substantial code review and
> any needed follow-up changes. That could leave scope feeling a bit
> mushier as far as the work involved, but gets a lot closer to feeling
> "done" as far as the actual need goes. The scope definition might be
> tightened by carefully describing the tests, but again that's probably
> something to discuss more later.
No contract can specify that the patch gets rolled into trunk, because
it's not up to the individual developer -- others might disagree,
there might be a vote, it might get reverted, and all of this would be
out of the original developer's control. The contract should be for a
patch (including tests), and a "best effort" at getting it committed
into trunk.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 12 00:47:36 2007