Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu development schedule?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Jeebs wrote:

> > I don't want to be harsh, but for me it is only important that the stuff I
> > need works, the rest doesn't matter to me as long as I don't benefit from
> > it...
>
> **BINGO!**
>
> That's precisely the kind of attitude I was concerned about.

So you are saying that because you like what the developers did so far,
they please now should change their attitude according to your
expectations?

> At some point, successful open source projects have to transition from the
> 'free for all' attitude and organization to one with some actual specified
> goals and some organization.

Why?

> But at least a list of things to do and a schedule that says things like:
> "When we add x, y, and Z and fix critical bugs 1, 2, 3, and 4, we'll
> probably release the next version."  That wouldn't stop people from adding
> their own patches to fix their own problems.  Or maybe do a feature early
> (provided more critcal stuff isn't being neglected).

You are so welcome to do that.

> If everybody is working on the 'sexy' stuff, then who is going to be doing
> the less glamorous stuff?

Those who need it. I personally know people who learnt Tcl/Tk just for
that stuff. I personally know people who can't write or fix programs, so
they had to provide detailed bug reports, get updated sources or patches
which they learnt to apply themselves, recompile, and test.

> I haven't done much 'development' since I was still using DOS.  I never
> learned C++, Java, etc.  I stayed with C and I'm out of practice with it.  I
> don't even have a C compiler installed anymore.

Cool! Almost the whole source code of Qemu is in C!

> > That just wouldn't be fair, right? A developer who spends time
> > and thought to implement something has to get something for it.
>
> That is true if you are talking about small projects or such.
>
> But when you are working on larger, more important projects, at some point
> you have to have some sort of organization, some sort of list of things to
> do, etc.  And at some point, somebody is going to have to work on things
> that need to get done that aren't "fun", or even usable for themselves.

Again, why? If things get unusable for a developer, she will fix it. If
things get unusable for a non-developer, he will try to find somebody who
can and wants to fix it (often you can help the 2nd part).

> But if the project has the *eventual goal* of being more usable for a wider
> range of people, then at some point you have to change how things are done.

Why should the project have that goal? I am not Jesus nor RMS.

> At the very least, you need a list of things that eventually need to be
> done.

No. You don't. Nobody has a (complete) list of things that need to be done
for the Linux kernel.

Read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Don't expect other people to do what
you would like them to do unless you are willing to be fair and give them
something in return.

This was my last post about that subject.

Ciao,
Dscho