[ text reordered during quoting ]
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:10:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I agree. We should do it like the BSDs: a tree that any developer
> > can commit to, for any package.
>
> How would you handle dilution of responsibility?
>
> When everyone is responsible for something, no one is responsible.
I heard this argument several time. But as a matter of fact the
collaborative projects I'm involved with (pkg-ocaml-maint, pkg-vim) do
work well.
I personally also tend to feel more inclined to sponsoring (since I can
easily get and review changes made by non-DD). It has also happened
several times that people not traditionally involved with the
maintenance of some package contributed code to it, way more often we
used to have NMU before the projects were fired up.
Do you have examples of collaborative maintenance projects where the "no
one is responsible" part plays a role, making people willing to go back
to non-collaborative maintenance?
> Or too many people making broad commits to to many packages without
> considering the details of the particular package being touched?
This happen in all large development projects and it is not a big deal.
Breakages do occur and people fix them. Is this all that difference than
a maintainer uploading a library breaking ABI compatibility with tons of
packages not touched by the upload?
BTW, note that there are intermediate positions among 1 package per
maintainer and one global source tree. Requiring all packages to be
either group maintained or have a fallback group (as in stratus'
proposal) is IMO a viable one.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature