On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:39, Zach Beane xach@xach.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:49:30AM +0100, Hans Hübner wrote:
I'm a bit unsure that we're solving any problem with this discussion. As far as I can see, the current model does work. I would thus propose that we stick with it, as it guarantees a certain level of quality, documentation and bug fix throughput.
On frustrating aspect of the current state of development is that minor fixes to seemingly unrelated libraries do not get applied or rejected, but hang in limbo. (Why should Hunchentoot hold up Drakma changes?)
I can agree with that, and as Edi described, there is a certain, singular cause for that, but said company seems to begin to move. It is fair to say that Edi has always been very diligent and prompt in fixing bugs in his libraries as long as he was the only one who had control over the source code. What we now need is a workable model to get the development process to move forward again without sacrificing the quality of both the source code and the documentation of Edi's software. If you want to check out something from a source code control system and work yourself through tests and sparse examples, there are other HTTP libraries that one can work with.
-Hans