Thomas Willhalm wrote:
> 
> As it comes to POV-Ray, the "stable" version is probably the official
> release. AFAIK the POV-Team includes known bug fixes in minor updates.

I don't expect POV-Ray 4.0 anytime soon, perhaps in year 2004? If there 
is really intention to make full rewrite, then I expect, that it takes 
at least couple of years (unless some miracle happens and POV-Team 
'conquers Mount Everest bare-foot' :-), so in the meantime POV-Ray 
community is on its own and free to develop patches :-)


> 
> I'm against a cvs server where anyone can submit patches. Usually
> you have some kind of maintainer who decides which patches are
> suited for this particular version. 
Why? Sure, there should be some maintainer (or build-master or 
whatever), who decides, which patches will go to release. Patch goes to 
the CVS branch and buildmaster decides, what goes to the release and 
will merge them with main branch (as it goes with CVS).

> In the before-mentioned scenario,
> a cvs server doesn't make much sense for the official version.
> There are just too few realeases.
As I said, I don't expect official new (4.0) version anytime soon 
(although I'd be glad, if my expectations are incorrect!).

> Finally, for the 3.5 based MegaPov, a public cvs server would make
> even more sense, because then developers could easily create their
> patches for a common source base. Nevertheless I think that a
> (group of) maintainer(s) is needed to ensure some kind of minimal
> standard. If someone - as it has happend in the past - shows up
> creating excellent patches I assume that such a person would get
> write access to the cvs very quickly.
> 

I tend to agree. If there is really doubt, that low-quality 
pathes/bug-corrections will be submitted, then 'commit' access could be 
limited to 'proven' persons by maintainer/buildmaster/whoever.

Post a reply to this message