Philip Brown <[email protected]> writes: > On 11/16/10, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: >> No dia 16 de Novembro de 2010 14:19, Sebastian Kayser >> <[email protected]> escreveu: >>> * Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I will also mention, given that Maciej gave the debian sharedlibs >>>> policy (section 8.1) as a reference, if we abided by the WHOLE text of >>>> that section. Again, my further notes on that, are at the bottom of >>>> the wiki page. >>> >>> When it comes to policy vs "when seen beneficial" in this case, I regard >>> it as helpful to have as few exceptions and as much of a standard as >>> possible. >> >> There's also the question of who is the subject to see the benefit. > > "The benefit " is supposed to be for the user, not the maintainer OR > the release manager. :) > As far as who determines it before the package is released: > by definition, the person with the most authority to make that > decision, is the release manager.
I completely disagree with this: the maintainers provides the work, respects the domain standards and agreed by the *maintainers* community. The users benefit form this as upgrades have a better granularity. The "release manager" is a facilitator for maintainers. What he is doing in our case is discretionary under the cover of user community advocacy. >> Is it the maintainer or the release manager? What if the two >> disagree? > > Ideally, "the maintainer" should respect the release manager's > experience in the matter. > But there's always recourse to the board. Theoretically. In practice I beg to disagree again... This bring up another issue: our foundation needs a long due election for renewing the board, but this is probably better brought up in another thread, that I agree. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
