Re: source mgt....[_HAS_ gcc relevance]

[Tom Lord <lord at emf dot net>]

       Florian> Well, you can do this using Aegis for a couple of
       Florian> years now, but I don't see that Aegis is adopted by
       Florian> the free software crowd.  Most of its members seem to
       Florian> have strong reservations regarding processes which are
       Florian> enforced by software. ;-)

   velco:

   > And rightfully so.  Aegis' model of "change" assignments to
   > developers doesn't quite fit the volunteer driven projects.

Eh.

The volunteers to some really key projects tend to be either
corporations (or corporate sponsored hackers) or just really
serious-minded individual hackers.

I think audiences like that can appreciate a little bondage and
discipline from their tools if the overall effect is to make their
life easier and more pleasant and their work-product quality higher.
Well, actually, I don't just _think_ this, I _know_ it because that's
part of how GCC works already.

Moreover, those key projects look to me like trend setters.  They can 
raise the bar for other projects by leading by example.

I agree that Aegis isn't quite the right fit for the development
practices we see in free software projects -- but (a) process
enforcement isn't in and of itself the problem (relentless, fixed-form
process enforcement and inflexability is) and (b) I've at least
casually tried to interest Peter Miller into contributing some lessons
from aegis to arch superstructure.  I think it's a good fit.

All: Not to gush, but: The engineering process quality on gcc is so
damn high, especially comparatively.  I feel _very_ self conscious
making so much noise on this list -- so please realize that it's a
very considered decision to do so.  In an ideal universe I'd just be
able to say "Here's arch 1.0, I'm sure you'll like it", but fiscal
reality means I have to advocate earlier in the development cycle.  I
know there's no global GCC budget or anything like that, but there is
a human network here and it does connect to people that can spend
money, with relatively few degrees of separation.

-t