5 ms·

He's right on with open source communities shunning new comers and code coming from people outside of their own circle. I've seen all over the place, it's path

He's right on with open source communities shunning new comers and code coming from people outside of their own circle. I've seen all over the place, it's pathetic. Great code is great code, doesn't matter who it comes from and who gets the recognition. Think about the project over yourself.

DarkShikari 17y ago
The difference is that code from an existing developer is going to be maintained: that is, the existing developer will stay around to take care of it. Code from an outside developer will just be committed and never touched again in many cases, since the outside developer doesn't intend to stay and work on the project. If you don't believe me, look at the history of the ffmpeg project: there are enormous swaths of unmaintained code (and uncommitted code) for exactly this reason. Thus, it is often reasonable to have higher code standards for code whose author does not intend to maintain it into the future.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Great unmaintained code is better than a well maintained codebase that features a set of fatal flaws :) These things are relative
  - natrius 17y ago
    There's no such thing as "great unmaintained code".
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      of course there is... great code that doesnt get refactored. Kick aside corporate jargon and namby-pamby ness :) The point was sometimes stuff just works, much better than a mess of a refactored project that has a core flaw.
      - nailer 17y ago
        Great code is still subject to entropy. Shit will break. Mail servers will start using some proposed SMTP extension, someone will find a nasty bug or two, there will be security problems and inconsistencies and inefficiencies discovered.
        torr 17y ago
        Sure. Then you simply require hit-and-run commits to be well-commented and also include good docs. Just because it's not currently maintained does not mean it won't be maintained in the future.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    What set of fatal flaws are you talking about?
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      huh? what? the flaws in XYZ piece of code. (I think your misunderstanding: I was replying to the generalisation with a generalisation)
spooneybarger 17y ago
Or maybe it has become a web of trust ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust ) Programmer A has been working with me for a long time, has done a lot of B- to B+ code. I trust that what he does is going to be up to that level. Programmer B has been working with me for a long time and consistently turns in C level code. It isnt great, it isnt horrid. Call him pedestrian. When I get something from him, I know what it is going to be. Adequate. Not everything has to be great, most things move forward on adequate because there are too many things to get for B and A level people to do them all. Programmer C is someone I don't know it all. Maybe I've heard of them by reputation, maybe not. Doesn't much matter, there is no trust there, I don't know what I'm getting. If I'm responsible, I'm going to vet their code closely. Make sure they follow coding conventions, best practices, etc. This takes time on my part. And my time is limited because now I am BDFL or some similarly ridiculous title that means "He's a busy guy".

DarkShikari 17y ago

The difference is that code from an existing developer is going to be maintained: that is, the existing developer will stay around to take care of it. Code from an outside developer will just be committed and never touched again in many cases, since the outside developer doesn't intend to stay and work on the project. If you don't believe me, look at the history of the ffmpeg project: there are enormous swaths of unmaintained code (and uncommitted code) for exactly this reason. Thus, it is often reasonable to have higher code standards for code whose author does not intend to maintain it into the future.

ErrantX 17y ago
Great unmaintained code is better than a well maintained codebase that features a set of fatal flaws :) These things are relative
- natrius 17y ago
  There's no such thing as "great unmaintained code".
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    of course there is... great code that doesnt get refactored. Kick aside corporate jargon and namby-pamby ness :) The point was sometimes stuff just works, much better than a mess of a refactored project that has a core flaw.
    - nailer 17y ago
      Great code is still subject to entropy. Shit will break. Mail servers will start using some proposed SMTP extension, someone will find a nasty bug or two, there will be security problems and inconsistencies and inefficiencies discovered.
      - torr 17y ago
        Sure. Then you simply require hit-and-run commits to be well-commented and also include good docs. Just because it's not currently maintained does not mean it won't be maintained in the future.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  What set of fatal flaws are you talking about?
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    huh? what? the flaws in XYZ piece of code. (I think your misunderstanding: I was replying to the generalisation with a generalisation)

spooneybarger 17y ago

Or maybe it has become a web of trust ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust ) Programmer A has been working with me for a long time, has done a lot of B- to B+ code. I trust that what he does is going to be up to that level. Programmer B has been working with me for a long time and consistently turns in C level code. It isnt great, it isnt horrid. Call him pedestrian. When I get something from him, I know what it is going to be. Adequate. Not everything has to be great, most things move forward on adequate because there are too many things to get for B and A level people to do them all. Programmer C is someone I don't know it all. Maybe I've heard of them by reputation, maybe not. Doesn't much matter, there is no trust there, I don't know what I'm getting. If I'm responsible, I'm going to vet their code closely. Make sure they follow coding conventions, best practices, etc. This takes time on my part. And my time is limited because now I am BDFL or some similarly ridiculous title that means "He's a busy guy".