"Shamim Islam" <shamim@poetryunlimited.com> writes:
> First off. I think subversion is one of the best things since sliced bread.
:-)
> That being said, I think there are somethings I just don't understand.
>
> Like what the pecking order is. What the criteria is for determining
> whether an issue is applicable or not. And who makes those decisions.
The pecking order is mostly not formalized, and its existence cannot
be proved. The only formal distinctions I know of are:
1. Humans who have net access.
2. Partial committers (people with commit access for a specific area.)
3. Full committers.
Each group is a subset of all the groups before it.
Issues are prioritized mostly by me, with input from the dev and users
lists. This is not because I have some magical power. It is because
I have been doing the job, and no one has felt I've been doing it
badly enough to complain or start a recall vote :-).
This is pretty much how all decisions work. People do stuff; when
there's disagreement about whether something should be done (or how it
should be done), then we discuss it. If the discussion does not lead
to consensus, then we take a survey or a vote. Formally, binding
votes are among the full committers; in practice, the full committers
may expand the electorate to include other parties whose votes they
want counted.
Have you read http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/HACKING? It
explains a lot of this.
The system works best for people who are comfortable with
decentralized decision-making. It can be a little disorienting for
those who prefer hierarchical structures.
> That being said, I'd also like to say that it's really hard to
> understand why you absolutely have to register in order to report a
> bug or even post a fix.
You mean register a username in tigris.org? That's just the way the
site works. It's read-only until you log in, then you can add
comments to issues, file new issues, etc. It's a bit annoying, but on
the other hand, it means we can always find the right person to
contact with a question or whatever, so it has its advantages too...
> None of this makes any sense to me.
>
> Especially, it seems to me, that even when you want to post a fix,
> you're politely told that "It's ok, it's not relevant."
I'd need more details about this complaint to respond. For example,
if you post about a bug, but other people don't agree it's a bug, then
it's reasonable that they would discourage you from posting a fix.
After all, they don't think it needs fixing.
On the other hand, if there's consensus that it *is* a bug, and yet
people are still telling you it's not relevant, then that's weird, and
we'd need to know the exact details to understand what happened.
Please give more details.
Best,
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 21 17:31:35 2003