|author||Samuel Thibault <email@example.com>||2015-02-18 00:58:35 +0100|
|committer||Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2015-02-18 00:58:35 +0100|
Revert "rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn"
This reverts commit 95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1.
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/contributing.mdwn')
1 files changed, 44 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/contributing.mdwn b/open_issues/contributing.mdwn
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+This should be integrated into [[/contributing]].
+Every now and then, people show up who have an inward urge to contribute to the
+GNU Hurd, but have some difficulties about how to do that.
+For example, IRC, #hurd, 2010-10-06:
+ <rah> I find it difficult to find the will to contribute to the hurd while hurd != hurd-ng
+ <pochu> hurd-ng?
+ <pochu> ah, http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/ng.html
+ <pochu> rah: you may want to work on achieving that then
+ <rah> pochu: I'm not in a position to do OS research
+ <antrik> rah: if you are not into OS research, why do you need it to be ngHurd? :-)
+ <rah> antrik: I don't want to work on software which I know is already obsolete
+ <tschwinge> rah: My position on that can be found here; you may want to think about it. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2007-07/msg00111.html
+ <antrik> rah: the existing Hurd implementation is not any more obsolete than any other large software project
+ <antrik> there are always things that could be redone in a better way some time in the future
+ <antrik> but we have to start somewhere
+ <antrik> software development is a dynamic process
+ <antrik> trying to come up with a perfect design before you write any code will never lead anywhere, ever
+ <rah> antrik: of course, but when you know your start is wrong, have identified its problems, and are in the process of designing a second attempt, working on the first seems pointless
+ <antrik> rah: well, do you know all these things? because I do not
+ <antrik> what the experiments with new Hurd designs proved so far is that nobody is in a position to claim, "I have a better design"
+ <antrik> it's not hard to come up with a design that is better in some points -- but it's damn hard to come up with one that's not lacking in others
+ <antrik> the existing Hurd design is actually the only one which we *know* to work
+ <antrik> while research on improving the design is certainly beneficial, it's not like there is something new ready to replace the existing design at any moment
+ <antrik> and frankly, I'm more and more convinced that only iterative changes can ever result in any real improvement
+ <antrik> (and doing these changes requires a certain momentum, which we will never gain unless we actually have something usable first)
+ <LarstiQ> rah: afaik, not much is being done of designing another attempt
+ <rah> antrik: yes, I know all these things