From 88af3f8ae0372d02c94254dd69497e0c1ca121fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 20:38:22 +0200 Subject: open_issues/contributing: New. --- open_issues/contributing.mdwn | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) create mode 100644 open_issues/contributing.mdwn diff --git a/open_issues/contributing.mdwn b/open_issues/contributing.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7ae742f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/open_issues/contributing.mdwn @@ -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 +License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] + +[[!tag open_issue_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: + + I find it difficult to find the will to contribute to the hurd while hurd != hurd-ng + hurd-ng? + ah, http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/ng.html + rah: you may want to work on achieving that then + pochu: I'm not in a position to do OS research + rah: if you are not into OS research, why do you need it to be ngHurd? :-) + antrik: I don't want to work on software which I know is already obsolete + 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 + rah: the existing Hurd implementation is not any more obsolete than any other large software project + there are always things that could be redone in a better way some time in the future + but we have to start somewhere + software development is a dynamic process + trying to come up with a perfect design before you write any code will never lead anywhere, ever + 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 + rah: well, do you know all these things? because I do not + what the experiments with new Hurd designs proved so far is that nobody is in a position to claim, "I have a better design" + 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 + the existing Hurd design is actually the only one which we *know* to work + 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 + and frankly, I'm more and more convinced that only iterative changes can ever result in any real improvement + (and doing these changes requires a certain momentum, which we will never gain unless we actually have something usable first) + rah: afaik, not much is being done of designing another attempt + antrik: yes, I know all these things -- cgit v1.2.3