Re: [Axiom-developer] Maintainers

[root]

> | > | 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.




> [...]
> 
> | 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.
the axiom sources exist in a dozen places and are freely writeable by
two dozen people. a sudden heart attack on my part would have little
if any effect on axiom development.






> | 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 :-)

t