| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz posted <4308513C.1070303@g.o>, excerpted below, on |
| 2 |
Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:02:36 -0700: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Nathan L. Adams wrote: |
| 5 |
> | What I see with Gentoo is this 'cathedral' being built where only those |
| 6 |
> | folks who have been 'approved' or 'blessed' as being l33t enough are |
| 7 |
> | allowed to review the code and actually cause a positive change when |
| 8 |
> | some bug is found. If you believe Chris Gianelloni's argument, then only |
| 9 |
> | those blessed developers who are also blessed by a particular group |
| 10 |
> | within Gentoo are allowed. Eventually the meritocracy degrades into a |
| 11 |
> | popularity contest. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Our code is all available in the portage tree or ViewCVS, and so are all |
| 14 |
> the ebuild bugs in Bugzilla. Nobody's stopping anybody else from |
| 15 |
> reviewing any submissions or filing new bugs. It's just a question of |
| 16 |
> who makes (and therefore approves of) the actual commit. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I don't see where your cathedral is coming from. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm with Donnie on this. Gentoo's quite the bazaar, IMO. When I read |
| 21 |
that cathedral thing, my reaction (strong enough to cause a verbal |
| 22 |
outburst as I read your post), was "Oh, brother! You don't have any |
| 23 |
idea!" That as I was physically shaking my head. I don't know where you |
| 24 |
got the idea that Gentoo's a cathedral at all, as it sure looks to be a |
| 25 |
bazaar from this viewpoint. You /totally/ lost me with that one. I |
| 26 |
couldn't disagree more! |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 32 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives