Excerpts from Jonathan Craig's message of Fri Jun 24 11:30:00 -0400 2011: Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for writing such a well thought out response. I think it sounds better when it comes from a 'new' voice. I agree with your main points and have snipped out anything that you've covered adequately. The remainder of this mail deals with the useful items you've pulled out. > "A group of subject matter experts will be established to support > and maintain the release system. This group will be subordinate to > the board and responsible for seeing that packaging policy to > properly enforced by the release systems. In the event an > unforeseen issue disrupts the release process they are empowered to > manually augment the system to enable timely release of packages. > Such manual intervention will be logged with the understanding that > repeated manual intervention will require enhancements to the > release system to accommodate routine exceptions." I agree with what you say here. An automated process does not imply a people-free process. The tools will evolve and improve over time. It will be people that drive the changes. This would be a good overall change to the proposal and I would support something like this. The key points for me are that 'group will be established' must be defined to allow anyone interested to participate. It should not exclude anyone that wants to extend effort toward making things flow and improving the tools. It should not by default give one or two maintainers more power than others. We'd need something that encourages more people to become SME's or at the very least doesn't discourage them. Setting hard barriers of any sort in place would be counter to the goals of the new system. [I can see that you understand this fully, I just want my rationale here to be crystal clear.] > I think most would have thought that something like this was > inherent to any automated solution, but it doesn't hurt to write a > little verbage to outline expectations. Agreed. This comment is well thought out and helpful. If you'd like to polish your statement above, I think that it fits well with the proposal as currently written. Although I won't speak for the other signers, I think it would meet with acceptance. Alternately, as most everyone understands this implicitly it may not be required. > handle this bit of nastiness as they see fit. Personally, having a > clear process for taking over a package and an automated solution to > enable "proper" takeover is better than doing this in the darkness > of night. Agreed. This is a tools implementing policy issue. > dependency. It would be nice if the maintainer could code these > dependency into their submit and see that its handled to their > wishes. That puts the maintainer in the drivers seat, where the > responsibility belongs. I actually had a similar thought earlier today when reading the graphviz thread. If we supplied a cswdepend file that held REV= info in addition to the package name, our tools could look at that and make smarter choices. This could allow for mypkg requires yourpkg with version >= %Y%m%d. (There are a lot of details in something like this and it doesn't belong in this thread...) Thanks! -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
