Subject: Re: [RFC] A Proposal for Binary Release Management
From: Eric W. Sink (eric@sourcegear.com)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 18:16:35 CDT
1. The trademarks should be a non-issue. The stuff in the
tree *does* reflect the fact that we used to have two sets
of marks, one for official builds, and one for everything
else. Thaat distinction existed to support a business
strategy which no longer exists, so we should be able
to simply things a bit.
2. Committee? I prefer the word "meritocracy". You guys
already function this way. There is no such thing as
authority. There is only "influence". You want influence?
Then work on the project. The more you work, the more
influence you end up getting, as a natural consequence.
I already think of Sam and Martin as the project leaders
for AbiWord, based on this very model. Note that this
concept is merely a rough approximation, since there are
others who really work hard on AbiWord as well. No offense
is intended. I'm merely pointing out that Sam and Martin
are two examples of people who have attained greater
influence on the development of AbiWord than I currently
have. They do more for the project than I do.
This aspect of things is not a change from the status quo.
That's the way you guys already do things, as far as I can
tell.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sam th" <sam@uchicago.edu>
To: "Dom Lachowicz" <cinamod@hotmail.com>
Cc: "abiword developer list" <abiword-dev@abisource.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [RFC] A Proposal for Binary Release Management
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
>
> > >(1) The decision is made to cut a new binary release on a certain
date,
> > >and on that date the tree is closed (this should only happen if
tinderbox
> > >is all green).
> > I can agree with this point. My question is "But what will we use
for
> > tinderbox?" If we had boxes to run tinderbox on (i.e. on all
supported
> > platforms), we wouldn't have the "build problem" in the first place
because
> > we could just ship those stripped binaries. Where would we get the
> > tinderboxes? Or am I missing something obvious?
>
> Well, there are several reasons to keep these issues seperate:
>
> 1) SourceGear may let us keep tinderbox. AFAIK, it doesn't require
> anyone's time at the moment, and I should be able to administer the
whole
> thing remotely anyway.
>
> 2) We have binaries on more than we have tinderbox (although that
would be
> nice to remedy).
>
> 3) I would like to keep the two seperate, just for simplicity.
>
> 4) If we lose tinderbox@sourcegear, we should have a good method for
> getting binaries anyway.
>
> >
> > >
> > >Potential Questions-
> > >
> > >Can we use SourceGear's trademarked images?
> > >How many verifications are neccessary?
> > >Should we use PGP/GPG encryption/signing?
> > >Who should make the decisions mentioned above?
> > Are you proposing we have a "benevolent dictator" to manage
releases, acting
> > as an official maintainer? Possibly maintainer by committee (e.g.
those with
> > cvs access get a vote?) I'm fine with either proposition. I'd also
volunteer
> > for either, but there are other highly qualified people on this list
too who
> > are more deserving than myself.
>
> I think 'rule by committee' is where this project is headed, but more
on
> that later.
>
> sam th
> sam@uchicago.edu
> http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iD8DBQE5x/9/t+kM0Mq9M/wRApQ5AJ4geeti7I4O9XBnxZUiMjxJrTmjmQCfRAFw
> hYPZqwV6VDpY2PZghEwblKc=
> =0UYL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Sep 19 2000 - 18:15:01 CDT