Re: [Axiom-developer] Maintainers

[root]

> | silver came into being in response to your requests.
> 
> No, I did not ask the creation of silver.  I requested you make your
> changes public and live -- before they move to gold.  What is
> currently called silver is not what I requested.  I did not request a
> repository that is effectively read-only.
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, let me more specific:
> 




>   (1) make your changes live and not just read-only.

They're not read-only. Search the CHANGELOG file for 'gdr' and
you'll see that you have made changes. It is just that my review 
is part of the change process. 






>   (2) in particular, make it possible that we all see the patches
>       applied (not just a message "patch --xxx" is available).

All patches are posted to the list.

All patches to silver get automatically posted due to Bill's robot.






>   (3) make the master repository under SVN.  This the "main" source
>       which which expriments, including releases are made of.

No, SVN is not the "main" source. Arch is. SVN was created at your
request and now you insist that it become the "main" source. This
has not been the case for the last 5 years and won't be the case
for the forseeable future. One key argument is that several developers
from this list other than myself have experienced problems with SVN.

SVN is fine for "experiments" and developers. It is NOT the release site,
never was, and is not planned as such. Arch has gold which gets published
every couple months with changes mirrored to savannah and sourceforge.
We've been doing that for many years.






>   (4) commit changes to the master repository before they go do gold.

They are committed to the master repository... axiom--silver--1
with changes that are pending in the next gold release. Multiple
direct changes to the master tree are not appropriate.

As an example, the most recent case of removing "duplicate" filenames
in the debugsys image was proposed. The change seems simple and
obvious and did not break the build-improvements branch. However, a
careful review of the change before accepting it into silver found it
to be incorrect.






>   (6) have more than just one maintainer.

There are 22 maintainers for Arch, 6 people with complete admin access
on savannah, and 3 people (including yourself) with complete admin
access on sourceforge.






Ulitmately we differ on philosophy. I believe that each branch
has one person ultimately responsible for that branch. The responsible
person determines policy. 

You are responsible for build-improvements and allow multiple changes
directly to the sources. That is appropriate for development software.

I am responsible for gold and silver and don't allow multiple changes
to the sources. That is appropriate for final release of software.



t