The Road to 2.18
Matthew P. Barnson
matthew at barnson.org
Tue Mar 9 01:21:20 UTC 2004
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:27:24PM -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote:
> Bugzilla rocks and I appreciate
> everything folks have done through the years, but maybe people wouldn't be
> so pressed for time if newcomers didn't need to beat their head against
> the wall for so long before being accepted.
Just fork the code. I'm not joking. Many projects cross-fertilize from forks and sets of patches. Just make sure to keep your fork current as a patch for the Bugzilla CVS HEAD, and enjoy allowing liberal patches to it. Savannah.gnu.org and sourceforge.net are both excellent places to host such a project. Heck, I'm a sysadmin for a living, and would gladly set up the resources to host such a project, as well. Progress on a fork that makes it better than standard CVS Bugzilla would probably gain rapid, wide acceptance.
As long as people work to make sure the projects remain interoperable, such a fork can be a good thing. My take on reticence towards massive changes in Bugzilla is that it stems from one simple historical phrase:
"Don't break bugzilla.mozilla.org."
I can understand both sides: one mainly interested in stability, one mainly interested in features. A well-run fork (or set of patches) was a good thing for egcs & gcc, the Alan Cox Linux kernel, and progress on WINE (erm, that last one is just my opinion, you know :). You never know what might happen. That's the beauty of free software.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject. If people are sufficiently dissatisfied with progress in a project, there's little sense in fighting about it when open source is so easy to fork and improve.
Matthew P. Barnson
- - - -
Thought for the moment:
The truth is what is; what should be is a dirty lie.
-- Lenny Bruce
More information about the developers