Bzr development stopped

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ben Finney writes:

 > My mistake was to say “is limiting”, which is ambiguous. I meant, more
 > accurately, “has limited”.

Even with the rephrasing, you have offered *no* evidence.

 > The damage of limiting the pool of potential contributors is done; I'm
 > not claiming there is *now* a huge pent up reservoir of contributions
 > waiting to flood into Bazaar when Canonical relinquishes its
 > self-serving contributor agreement. Most of the people who might have
 > done so have moved on.

I don't know about "most" moving on (again, you have *zero* evidence
to offer), but I can name five current regular participants in this
list who have serious cred as developers and are likely contributor
agreement refuseniks.  There are probably others I don't know about.
They haven't "moved on," they just don't contribute.  Only one has
come forward to say that he "surely" would have contributed had there
been a more reasonable contributor agreement.

I would suspect that the strict quality control is a bigger factor,
combined with the usual issues of learning a complex code base that
manages a complex set of data structures, plus strict review and test
policies.  Even highly skilled developers need to put in a lot of time
to get their patches through the queue, despite the wonderful "patch
pilot" program.  I can't imagine users want quality control relaxed
much, though (except for people who desperately need some feature, and
even they would argue for a one-off I bet).