Subject: Re: Bug Bounties. Making $ from bugzilla.
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:07:24 +0000

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
> burton@openprivacy.org (Kevin A. Burton) writes:
> 
> > > If I recall correctly, it was the experience of Cygnus that most patches
> > > supplied were undesirable,
> >
> > Not my experience.  The problem with Cygnus was they did not have an Open
> > Development Model at the time (as open as it is today).
> >
> > Thus patches came in "blind" without discussing them with project leads and
> > other experts.
> 
> That turns out not to be the case.  Of course some patches came in
> blind.  But there were mailing lists to discuss the projects; at the
> time joining a list had to be approved by a project maintainer, but
> they did include many people outside of Cygnus.
> 
> > I would say that most patches to Open projects such as Apache range on the 80%
> > level.
> 
> If you meant that 80% of the submitted patches are directly usable, I
> doubt it.  I've been involved with a bunch of free software projects,
> though I've never been involved with Apache.

Its certainly my experience that most patches submitted by non-team
members in Apache get rewritten to some extent. However, the submitter
has usually done 80-90% of the work involved, so I'm not sure how much
it matters.

It did occur to me that an obvious criterion for "okness" of a bug fix
is whether it gets used by the original software. But that seems fraught
with problems, especially when it gets partially used.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff