Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Change to multiple executables?

From: Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:57:29 -0400

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Andy Parkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> People get itches and they want to scratch them.  They aren't paid, so they
> don't necessarilly want to turn up and be told which part they _should_ be
> working on.  The choice is not "bug fix that Gavin wants" or "new feature
> that New Developer wants", it is "New Feature" or nothing.

This is true -- though there is value to having a list of "things we
think people should focus on" for the motivated, and for new people
interested in tackling a project, but not sure what project to tackle.

>> there would be less pressure to help with the boring bug-fixing and
>> testing of the bug-fix branch, which I think would be bad.
>
> That pressure might be relieved if the community were able to grow a bit,
> and people felt they had a personal investment.  That means loosening the
> reigns a bit; and perhaps a development branch would be the way to do that
> while not compromising code quality.

A centrally managed development branch on bitcoin/bitcoin.git is not
the way to do it, however.  See the description of linux-next, in my
previous email, for a more distributed method which can easily be
layered on top of the existing bitcoin dev structure by any motivated
volunteer(s).

Think distributed.  :)  The community does not need Linus's help
(linux-next) or Gavin's help (bitcoin-next) to do this.  linux-next
became so widely used and useful that Linus requires almost all
changes to be first staged in linux-next.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
[email-masked]