[Sugar-devel] R&D vs Product Support

[James Cameron]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:34:12PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> In some cases, we see patches rejected not because the approach is
> inherently wrong, but because the patch applies to the current code in
> git and not to a future rewrite or that does not yet exist.

Yes, I see that happening.  It confuses me.  It sounds like a whinge,
which in my culture means speaking about a problem without wanting to be
part of any solution to that problem.

But I think these rejects are a response to a threat to the noosphere
homestead, or the person rejecting has a perfect view of the future but
hasn't yet got a patch to implement it.

Surely our reply to such a rejection should be ENOPATCH.

I suggest that "planned future rewrite" be banned as a reason to reject
a patch.  Instead, the patch should be accepted now, and the "planned
future rewriter" wear the cost of their own delay.

A plan that is unattainable is no plan at all.  It's another way of
saying we'll do nothing.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/