I think the solution is easier: Anyone that proves they are capable will be given access to do this.
We won't be handing out responsibility to volunteers who have not yet proven they are capable at the task through patches - just like how commit access is granted in general. We do need better revision control, and at some point to draw a line in the sand and not change things. My single biggest regret about the first release is not sorting this out better, even though I knew it was coming I thought it would peak and get sorted out. I can't believe we *still* can't agree on how hibernate should be done. I actually wonder if we'd been better off starting from scratch and adding lovingly hand-crafted POMS by people that needed them. I guess there's still time to start over in a new repo :) Cheers, Brett Arik Kfir wrote: > Hi, > > IMO the most urgent thing the ibiblio repository needs now is > decentralized management - meaning: assiging certain people (or groups > of people) to be responsible for managing a specific part of the repo > (e.g. "joe is managing all hibernate-related POMs"...) > > These people can be among the maven dev team - but I think a more > reasonable approach would be that these peole come from the maven > community (see my mail on the user mailing list on december about > this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-users/200512.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED]) > > This has the potential to solve most of the issues the author of the > blog (justifiably) raises. > > I think that will remove most of the (heavy) load burdened on Carlos, > Edwin and the other Maven team members and free some of their time. Of > course, to make that happen, a set of guidelines for those maintainers > will have to be laid out (if/when to update an existing POM, when to > define dependencies as optional, etc) but once that is done, I think > the QoS of the central repository will increase ten-folds and make > Maven 2.x a real joy cruise for users: both quality-wise of the > artifacts and the response time for fixes. > > Best regards, > Arik Kfir. > > On 2/3/06, Robert Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://www.ctoforaday.com/archives/000049.html >> >> Seems fair to me, has mirrored may of the headaches with our own >> implementation. Rob. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > _____________________________________ > Arik Kfir [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
