root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > A single point of failure is when we have only one person | > | > (1) that has authority to approve and apply changes to the main source, | > (2) make official realeases. | > | | That is a single point of control, not a single point of failure.
when the control fails to function properly, the development of system fails to progress. By implication, the "point of control" is a "point of failure". [...] | > When that single person becomes unavailable temporarily or forever, | > the project is stalled. | | I don't recall that everyone was required to stop development. the availability of the newer version wwas delayed, and nobody else could do it, because nobody else had the source. | > Do you want to be remind you how late --patch-50 was? | | And, indeed, life intervenes. thanks God, nobody blames you for that. But, it did happen. As you mention build-improvements; let me point out that I would very much like to see more people involved, capable of making changes to the "right" directions so that I do not become a single point of failure. So, in case you would be under the impression I would like a single maintainership on build-improvements and question that of gold and silver, be assure it is not the case. I've repeated it enough. And I hope we've gotten build-improvements out of the way. | The project was not stalled though | because I spent time getting a hundred copies of Axiom built and | handed out at the ISSAC conference. The result of this time gained | us (hopefully) access to Manuel's work and a few other connections | to other people in our target audience. "... gained us acceess to Manuel's work", in which form? -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
