[Gtkradiant] Re: Gtkradiant Digest, Vol 22, Issue 12

[namespace]

> ...and you think they've not contributed their code because there isn't 
> an unstable tree?
You miss the point. An unstable tree doens't convince people to
write and commit patches but give developers the opportunity to improve
their patches alot faster because there can be more feedback from the community.
With the current system the community can't comment on any patch since
the lasted builds (the nighly builds) are build from the current unpatched tree.


> Thing is, an unstable branch can't just take every patch "to test" - e.g 
Yes of course you can't include every single patch, only those which add a usefull feature or fix a bug.


> most of the "unstable" linux kernel tree is stuff that's going in, not 
> stuff that might.
This may work for large projects like the linux kernel with hundreds of coders and 
testers involved, but it sure won't work for radiant with only a handfull of programmers and no testers.


> To get testers or to get it considered for inclusion etc the patch 
> itself needs to be somewhere.
The patches are on the mailinglist, still we don't have any testers
so I would say that having the patches "elsewhere" doesn't quite cut it.


namespace