Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...
  • Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:54:06 -0600

On Mar 11, Pieter Lenaerts [e-type AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> As of 2), I think per spell maintainership as a general rule will end us
> up with only a couple spells that have 5 candidates for maintainers, and
> all other spells with no maintainer. if I just look at editors section I
> can point out that vim won't have a trouble finding a maintainer, but
> who uses cooledit? who would maintain yudit?

I have this concern as well. Also it was noted recently that as we've
added more and more general gurus with responsibility for just a few spells
and fewer section gurus we've seen developer involvement and investment go
down.

It's been noted in those conversations that no matter what we did we'd
still want some kind of section maintainer. But we probably don't lose
anything making it easier for individuals to have individual spells
delegated to them from the maintainer of that spell's main section.
However, that does imply a need to maintain some kind of "main section" for
all spells so a section maintainer can be identified.

Overall I agree completely with Andrew that at times we want things
organized by code reuse, at times we want them organized by maintainer, and
at times we want them organized by function. I do think that it's more
than just users that will want to see things organized by function, there's
project organization needs there as well. Unfortunately that means we
probably can never completely make the all of function categories
completely arbitrary and up to the users.

Attachment: pgpjgtLXlD5NS.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page