zeps at ihug.com.au
Wed Jul 14 04:01:29 PDT 2004
Ian Molton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:33:14 +1000
> Zeplin <zeps at ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>>I agree. IRC moves *far* too fast for anything but unstable and
>>>covers too few people to be representative.
>>Sure irc moves fast be-lfs was done useing irc as the communication
>>medium. But then again, targets were made and achived then revised and
>>achived, Much like a meeting for a company/board of directors.
>>Learn from buistness.
> Businesses often set up 'release teams' to polish products.
> IRC is fine for unstable, which is very good (I run it) but it needs a
> slower more thought out development process if it is to become stable.
Great, Thats not the only problem, How about some solutions then from you?
To cover all bases?
Should we remove developer phone access as well? Just to make sure they
arnt talking amoungst themselfs?
Useing one medium over and other is mearly personal preferance. Telling
them that irc can only be used for a specific area, is cutting your
teams own neck.
To polish a product, A structure is needed, OBviously the current isnt
working, look at the list of people who left. And the number of times
they have gone to forks or other projects, just to have there work
incorperated into LFS eventually anyway.
There is fundemental lacking at some point in the existing proccess.
Otherwise, the entire thread wouldnt have even started.
ok, your turn to think about it, and get a solution, Not just repeat the
*irc* is to fast crap. We are aware of other projects that use irc as
the main communcation proccess.
Your attempt to discredit it as a valid medium for stable book
conversations/changes is flawed
More information about the lfs-dev