root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | 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? [...] | 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. | 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. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
