Hi, Am 19.11.2010 um 18:34 schrieb Philip Brown: > On 11/19/10, Peter FELECAN <[email protected]> wrote: >> Philip Brown <[email protected]> writes: >> ... >>> So let me share more detail of my experience, and how that benefits my >>> position of release manager. >> >> Well, nobody said that your contribution [as release manager] to the >> community is not >> valuable. > > Choosing the option of "no human release manager", is saying exactly that. > (if one presumes that people are choosing that option, with the > assumption that quality of packages will not suffer as a result) > > It would in some ways bother me more, if a majority of maintainers > voted for "no human release manager", and believed in their hearts, > "yes, quality of packages WILL suffer, but I dont care, i just want > life easier for myself" > If the majority of voting members no longer care about package quality > as paramount importance, that would be a sign that opencsw has become > an organization I would no longer wish to be a part of, or even use > products from.
Peter, IIRC we agreed on moving to something similar like http://wiki.opencsw.org/automated-release-process This indeed has no release manager for the first step when the maintainer can deliver directly to experimental/ (as in the document, not as we use it ATM), which automatically generates new catalogs and brave users can install from that. But the migration to the following repositories unstable/testing/stable (again as in the document) are done asynchronously by the release manager. So I think you are suggesting to shift the role of the release manager slightly, right? Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
