Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Re: Quality of OpenACS

Collapse
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on
Dave, in the szenario you describe we will not need a release mechanism any more. Anything that is committed should be automatically released under the maturity level, as the conditions for the commit are exactly the ones I propose for releases.

So the question remains do we want strict commit or strict release rules (as we agree on the goals/guidelines/rules/bylaws/...)? What are the pros and cons of each approach. And what are the consequences for the development style and sharing of code of individual committers.

On a related note, I know that a lot of code, patches, new functionalities exist out there in the open which no one is committing, not because the functionality is not good, but because they do not have the time to test it in a proper way that will make it release worthy. My take was always to have these kind of features in HEAD and jointly figure out how to test them before release. If my take does not fit with the community at large, I would like to know how and where to exchange code that I deem interesting but did not have to time to write automated tests or test a new install with.

Collapse
Posted by Alex Kroman on
I know that there is a lot of code sitting out there that won't be committed because when developers try to install a package from HEAD they get the message "Installation Failed".

Commits to HEAD should be working code that are unstable not because they don't work but because they've only been tested on the developers own machine with a vanilla OpenACS installation.