Re: [Axiom-developer] Maintainers

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

root <address@hidden> writes:

| > | > | A "single point of control", however, is vitally important.
| > | > | You're basically "putting your name" on the dotted line 
| > | > | claiming that you "control" the repository. If you allow
| > | > | anyone to make any change they want you'll quickly find that
| > | > | you have no idea what the changes mean and how they impact
| > | > | the stability of "silver".
| > | > 
| > | > That does not make much sense.  People should be allowed to make
| > | > changes to silver when their patches are approved.  That is very
| > | > different from people making random changes willy-nilly as you seem to
| > | > imply. 
| > | 
| > | ..."when their patches are approved"...
| > | 
| > | if the idea is tested in a branch
| > 
| > You're not going to require people to create a branch for *every
| > single* patch, right?
| 
| idea == patch? surely you jest.
| you clearly don't think that's a reasonable sentence or 
| you would not have organized build-improvements the way you did.

As you probably realized, I don't require people to create a branch
off build-improvements just to provide a patch.  right?  

build-improvements is a substantial work; consequently, it needs a
branch.  However, when a dependency rule is missing (as evidenced by
patch to this list), it would very bureaucratuic and inefficient use of
resources to require people to branch of build-improvements just to
provide a branch to correct the missing dependency.  I hope you get
the point.

[...]

| > | one person has total control over the whole source tree in their branch,
| > | such as you have with build-improvements. why isn't it reasonable to
| > | have one person coordinating silver? 
| > 
| > For that matter, I feel the control of branches should be shared
| > responsabilities when and where that appropriate.  In the case of the
| > trunk/silver I feel even more so that it should not depend on a single
| > point of failure.
| 
| please lose the notion of "single point of failure" as it is meaningless.

No, it is not.  You have provide evidence for this over the past,
feeling you're obliged to offer aplogogies after apologies.

[...]

| > | there are a lot of "other tasks" besides checking in changes 
| > | that need to be performed in order to keep a silver version.
| > | who would have the responsibility to do this?
| > 
| > Please be more specific, so that I can offer meaningful answer.
| 
| well, answering related email would be one :-)

Please, don't be afraid to be more *specific*.

-- Gaby