pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] [pcp-announce] PCP developers conference call

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] [pcp-announce] PCP developers conference call
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0mtx3m9oke.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <901130688.60042744.1412210950889.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <1968683202.60097085.1412217054636.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mtx3m9oke.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: I+GUFgx3iAjtIIqxIEopoJkEJ5Dhcw==
Thread-topic: PCP developers conference call
Hi Frank,

----- Original Message -----
> > [...]
> > - source trees
> > [...]
> >   - issues with separate trees, pcp web status [fche, nathans]
> > [...]
> 
> I would like to discuss the larger issue of the maintenance role,

Absolutely - I had assumed this'd be discussed in the above topic,
but lets indeed make this a separate topic of its own.  I have two
other topics from Michele to throw into the mix too - I'll send an
updated agenda out early next week.

> whose centralized nature allowed the current situation to develop.

This assertion is pure conjecture, however.  Many other successful
open source projects follow a similar model.  Let us instead state
only facts:  this "current situation" is one more in the series of
disagreements involving you and I about some of your contributions
(this is, of course, not the first time we have discussed separate
trees for new components you are contributing).  In the 15+ years
I've been involved with PCP - with the last ~7 years as the primary
maintainer-and-release-guy - I've not seen similar situations arise
with contributions from anyone else.

Not laying blame here, rather I'm saying you and I have, at times,
bumped into some very-hard-to-resolve issues around code - we often
both believe we're right and we both have strong-willed personality
types, I guess.

Anyway, facts only please - conjecture and emotive words ("cleaving"
source trees, "extirpation" of source code, "FUD") - not so much.

> I'd like the community to consider spreading different aspects
> of maintenance amongst a larger pool of people:
> 
>     - reviewing/merging random community patches
>     - improving infrastructure
>     - developing technical sub-area
>     - testing on an ongoing basis
>     - fixing filed bugs
>     - engineering releases
>     - packaging in distros
>     - providing technical direction
>     - building consensus in community
>     - breaking ties

Sounds good to me - lets keep it open, honest and respectful.  Thanks
for raising these topics.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>