On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > (Apologies, I hit "send" too early. Here's a proofread version.) >... > > For example, package consulting is hugely important. Dissecting a > package, analyzing the contents, looking for direct and potential > problems, and providing feedback, is an immensely valuable activity. > >> 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) > > No human release manager means that there is no single person in > power. It does not mean that packages aren't examined by a human.
(I will point out that this is EXACTLY what Peter proposed: no-one other than the maintainer would directly examine them before release, is his stated goal. But now to address what you wrote:) How will they ever get examined by someone other than the maintainer, then? Please propose something that is actually practical, rather than just ideal. In the Real World, how will you ensure that packages are examined "by a human[that is not just the maintainer themselves]" before release to 'current'? What you wrote, seems to be contradictory. if there is no human release manager, then there is no human looking at packages before release. perhaps you meant "no SINGLE release manager", but that's not what you wrote :-) _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
