lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: clear policy discussions


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: clear policy discussions
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:33:23 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux)

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>
> To: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>; "Janek Warchoł"
> <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: clear policy discussions
>
>
>> a) a release-meister with responsibility to take all decisions.
>> That's what Han-Wen used to do, I believe.  It worked
>> quite well, although Graham will have more of an inside view
>> than I.  Would need to be someone with a similarly wide
>> overview.
>
>
> In principle, I'm not against giving people authority to take
> decisions where there aren't hard-and-fast rules.  However, there is a
> very substantial downside with this in an environment such as
> LilyPond.  Given our poor recent history of being able to achieve
> consensus on fairly simple things (<> vs s1*0 anyone) there's a
> significant possibility of large clashes where the Release Meister
> makes a value judgement with which others disagree.  I could envisage
> a stable release being pushed out because the RM thought it optimum,
> but another team member being significantly annoyed because, say, it
> had a bug that stopped his music setting.  All hell then starts.

Which team member is actually seriously using 2.14 still?  Why are
problems requiring a backport to fix "all hell"?

> That's the benefit of rules - we argue over the rules slightly
> dispassionately, not over the value judgements.

Whoever complains gets to be the next release manager.  You'll be
surprised how little complaints there will be given this threat.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]