On 11/12/2010 9:33 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
At Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:33:38 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote:
I don't think the volunteers themselves can be authorized to commit to trunk. We need more trusted people to do that.
I would like to clarify this. It's not a question of trust, it's more a question realizing that there has to be one person who is responsable for the integrity of the whole library. In a larger library, many patches and fixes will inadvertantly break something else. If you want someone to be responsable, he has has to have the authority to control all the changes. If changes go in from more than one person - then no one is responsable.
I think I understand what you're driving at, but if what you said were strictly true, there would be no working partnerships in the world, right? There is such a thing as shared responsibility. However, it's true that you probably can't spread it uniformly across the community.
I don't think either Jim or myself have suggested fully spreading it across the community. I think we both are suggesting "training" a group of volunteers, the Guild, to shared that responsibility. In exchange for healthier libraries we are trading some control. Which seems like a more than fair trade to me. What Jim and I are trying to grapple with is how much control is given up and how to temper the lost control. But what I mentioned in another response is that the goal would be to never loose control over the design. Since it's only patches to fix bugs that we are loosing some control over. And after all, it's the design that of paramount importance. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail