3 ms·

Since Wietse is wary of accepting patches from other people, publishing even a read-only version control repository does absolutely nothing for him. Instead it

by agwa 12y ago

Since Wietse is wary of accepting patches from other people, publishing even a read-only version control repository does absolutely nothing for him. Instead it would only be a burden, not only because he might have to change his workflow, but also because it would invite patches from people who only know how to use version control and can't make it over the barrier of using tar, diff, and patch.

ef4 12y ago
Doesn't follow at all. There are open source projects that expose read-only VCS and still only accept patches via email. Postgres, for example.
- agwa 12y ago
  The point is that public VCS doesn't benefit Wietse, and by extension Postfix, so why should he have one? A public VCS only benefits other people, most of whom aren't even contributing to Postfix development. Postgres is a different project and they no doubt see a different cost/benefit ratio for public VCS, probably because they have many more core developers and contributors than Postfix. I've actually had a patch accepted to Postfix and while I found it inconvenient not to use my usual VCS-based workflow, I also realized that the Postfix world revolves around Wietse, not me, and as a user of Postfix I benefit most when the project is optimized for him and not other people.
  - ef4 12y ago
    Let's rewrite this: "The point is that public VCS doesn't benefit Wietse, and by extension Postfix, so why should he have one? A public VCS only benefits other people, most of whom aren't even contributing to Postfix development." Like this: "The point is that publishing source tarballs doesn't benefit Wietse, and by extension Postfix, so why should he? Publishing the source only benefits other people, most of whom aren't even contributing to Postfix development." The answer to both question is "he doesn't have to, but if he takes seriously the goals of open source it would be silly not to." It's not unlike choosing to withhold your Makefiles, or documentation.
    - agwa 12y ago
      Wietse obviously wants to benefit people who use Postfix, which is why he releases tarballs, Makefiles, and documentation, so people who want to use Postfix can get it, compile it, and learn how to use it. VCS does not further those goals, but instead benefits would-be developers (and an insignificant minority of users who aren't worth optimizing for).
      - pconf 12y ago
        A writeable open VCS would also make heartbleed-like vulnerabilities more likely. As such the OP's comments should be evaluated as potential astroturf. Were the NSA looking to introduce new and effective backdoors, and we know they are, this would be one way to pressure IBM/Weitse for access.

by agwa 12y ago

ef4 12y ago

Doesn't follow at all. There are open source projects that expose read-only VCS and still only accept patches via email. Postgres, for example.

agwa 12y ago
The point is that public VCS doesn't benefit Wietse, and by extension Postfix, so why should he have one? A public VCS only benefits other people, most of whom aren't even contributing to Postfix development. Postgres is a different project and they no doubt see a different cost/benefit ratio for public VCS, probably because they have many more core developers and contributors than Postfix. I've actually had a patch accepted to Postfix and while I found it inconvenient not to use my usual VCS-based workflow, I also realized that the Postfix world revolves around Wietse, not me, and as a user of Postfix I benefit most when the project is optimized for him and not other people.
- ef4 12y ago
  Let's rewrite this: "The point is that public VCS doesn't benefit Wietse, and by extension Postfix, so why should he have one? A public VCS only benefits other people, most of whom aren't even contributing to Postfix development." Like this: "The point is that publishing source tarballs doesn't benefit Wietse, and by extension Postfix, so why should he? Publishing the source only benefits other people, most of whom aren't even contributing to Postfix development." The answer to both question is "he doesn't have to, but if he takes seriously the goals of open source it would be silly not to." It's not unlike choosing to withhold your Makefiles, or documentation.
  - agwa 12y ago
    Wietse obviously wants to benefit people who use Postfix, which is why he releases tarballs, Makefiles, and documentation, so people who want to use Postfix can get it, compile it, and learn how to use it. VCS does not further those goals, but instead benefits would-be developers (and an insignificant minority of users who aren't worth optimizing for).
    - pconf 12y ago
      A writeable open VCS would also make heartbleed-like vulnerabilities more likely. As such the OP's comments should be evaluated as potential astroturf. Were the NSA looking to introduce new and effective backdoors, and we know they are, this would be one way to pressure IBM/Weitse for access.