[Top][All Lists]

[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]