On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 09:22:24PM +0200, Johan Engelen wrote:
On 27-3-2014 2:24, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Related to this, how strict do we want to be on inclusion of library code copies in our codebase, that have but a single maintainer or no maintainer at all?
I am personally not a fan of having any library codes included in our codebase. I understand why we do, and would not advocate getting rid of them. But I believe packaging exists for a reason, and if done well would remove the need to pile external codebases in.
I personally believe any codebase with no maintainer should be treated as a contribution to the Inkscape codebase, and be required to conform to all of our stylistic, test, and performance requirements.
What if there /is/ a maintainer? The immediate problem is that all those libs trigger a lot of bug warnings (many of which *are* bugs), that cloud our own bugs. A reworked build system that allows excluding those libs for compilers warnings / static analysis would help a lot. Also, I think we should move all these libs to a directory called "external" or something, so that it is clear no-one should make any change there without committing it upstream.
Seems reasonable to me. I do definitely believe that if there's an active maintainer, it is good FOSS citenzenship to be sending patches to fix issues we discover in their code.
Bryce