From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 25 12:41:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2046316A4B3 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B6D43F75 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9PJfabe075262; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h9PJfZP9000879; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9PJfZZ7000878; Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:35 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Terry Lambert Message-ID: <20031025194135.GA790@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <200310230143.32244.wes@softweyr.com> <20031025175948.GF683@funkthat.com> <3F9AC703.4DBAA14C@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F9AC703.4DBAA14C@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: Kip Macy cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: John-Mark Gurney Subject: Re: FreeBSD mail list etiquette X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:41:57 -0000 On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 11:54:59AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Frankly, FreeBSD has too many cooks, and not enough bottle washers; > this is a euphimism for saying that all anyone with a commit bit > seems to want to do any more is write new code, and no one is > willing to take on the integration and maintenance tasks. The euphemism sucks, but the point is there. The problem here has nothing to do with commit bits. People who do the dirty work and do it in a way that demonstrates that they can do it unattended are given commit bits. The problem is that after a certain amount of dirty work someone either goes away or, if given a commit bit, moves on to more interesting things to waste time on. There is also a problem in that the dirty work, even if done in a way that demonstrates that the person has skills, is not always recognised as important. The recognition has to come from within that part of the developer community that has commit bits, because you need someone with a commit bit to actually commit the stuff. If noone with a commit bit recorgnises the dirty work as important, it's not going to be committed and the person who has done the dirty work is not recognised as someone who is worthy of a commit bit because none of his work has been committed. You don't solve the problems by giving out commit bits. That will only accomplish that effort moves from prior to the commit to after the commit, adding repository pollution to the mix. It therefore makes the problem larger, not smaller. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net