[ODE] From unstable to trunk...

[gl]

> What we have now is very similar to the situation you describe,
> though in theory better.  We have the UNSTABLE branch which lots more
> people can check into at will without very much quality assurance,
> then the good bits get transferred to the trunk.

Right, but it seems to me that in practice there is no positive action on 
patches on the UNSTABLE branch either.  What I was suggesting was 
force-feeding patches to people on the main trunk, to force a response 
either way.  If no response is forthcoming, the patch is most likely OK. 
This could mitigated by requiring patch creators to #ifdef their patches so 
they can easily be disabled if need be.

I realise this is a pretty hard-nosed approach, but it may kick the 
community into action - and if people decide that they've had enough of any 
ensuing chaos, it may mobilise some into actively mainting the project out 
of sheer frustration : ).
--
gl