On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > > No, at this point we don't have a release manager, we haven't since 1.2. > We > > have people who do the builds and put them up on sourceforge, but they > > aren't release managers, they don't decide what is in the release or > > organise the effort. We haven't had a central figure since Travis got a > real > > job ;) And now David has a real job too. I'm just pointing out that that > > projects like Linux and IPython have central figures because the > originators > > are still active in the development. Let me put it this way, right now, > who > > would you choose to pull the changes and release the official version? > > OK - for nipy - we have - I think - 5 people who can commit into the > main repository. Any one of those 5 people can review someone's work, > and commit into the main repository. My guess is - with numpy - > there would be some number of people with the same permissions - I > imagine you among them. But the rule is - > > No-one commits into the main repo without someone reviewing and > agreeing the work > > Any trusted person can review. But the point is: > > No development in the main repo. Merges only. > > Why? > > Let's flip your question the other way round. > > You are saying - I want to continue (as for SVN) to develop in the main > repo. > > No, I am saying we need at least five people who can commit to the main repo. That is the central repository model. > But the main repo is where everyone merges from. That means that > > a) It makes it much harder for anyone to review your changes because > they are mixed up in a lot of other changes and b) You force everyone following numpy to adopt your changes > > In practice - that means that you make it harder for others by making > them follow your line of development when they may not want to - until > it's ready. > > Review is fine, and it would be nice if more people were reviewing code. At the moment I think it is just Pauli, Stefan, and myself. I guess you'd agree that code review is essential to good code quality > - both for improving code - and for teaching. It encourages new > developers because they know their work will be checked. It helps > developers learn the coding guidelines and to share good practice. It > helps the developers have a broad knowledge of the code base. > > With SVN / central repo development - that's really hard - because all > the development lines get mixed up as people work in different places. > > But a repo that five folks can commit to *is* a central repository, by definition. DVCS and central repository are orthogonal concepts. With git / DVCS - it suddenly becomes absolutely natural. > > I think that's why people like Joel Spolsy say stuff like 'This is > possibly the biggest advance in software development technology in the > ten years I’ve been writing articles here.' : > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/03/17.html > > Please - try it - see - I am absolutely sure you'll love it after a > very short time... > > Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
