> I think you make a good point-- and frankly my proposal may simply > reflect my ignorance about the tools community. > > My general feeling is that "tools" is focused on providing tools to > developers. My idea for "gardeners" (or whatever we call it) was to be > chartered more around the improvement of the code itself. > > Is that too fine a distinction? That is to say, "lint party" or > "should we retire I2O support?" seems a little far afield for the tools > community, to me. And conversely, discussions about mercurial, SVN, porting, > gcc compilation, etc. seem mostly separate from the "gardening" tasks. > > What do others think? Is there a charter for tools we should consult? > Do I need some language in the proposal to separate gardeners from tools? > Should we just increase the scope of the tools community instead? > Should gardeners just be a mailing list which is part of tools?
My view is that the two are related but distinct. Specifically, I'd think the Gardeners community would focus on improving OpenSolaris code quality, style, reuse, rigor, and maintainability. Doing that in an efficient, accurate, and sustainable manner will likely require the introduction of new tools, which will need to be done in cooperation with the tools community. -- meem _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
