Re: `Every package must have exactly one maintainer'
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk> writes:
James> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
>> 4. A unique point of communication. In case of questions WRT a
>> packages' `interface', it's much easier for other maintainers to
>> get an `authoritative' answer if you have one person to contact.
James> You continually bring up this hideously bogus argument.
I would find it easier to believe this argument is specious if
there were at least one positive example.
I hear a number of excuses why all current examples are bad;
but the point is, all I have is an unproven theory (with lots of
excuses why the efforts to put it in practice have failed).
I am not arguing that we outlaw multi-maintainer packages. I
am saying that sharing responsibility does dilute it, and a
package-by-committee requires far more communication.
Has any one read the Mythical man month and what it says about
design/implementaion by committee?
manoj
--
"Home is is the place where your computer lives and runs your life."
Chrome Cowboy, sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: