On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Fabio Tranchitella <kobold@kobold.it> wrote:
* 2010-03-03 21:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
The ZTK was created in part to deal with instability issues arising from people working on parts without testing the whole.
I suppose everybody here agrees that any change to a package which is part of the ZTK *must* be tested against the whole ZTK.
It would be great if that were true. If so, then the recent arguments have been a terrible misunderstanding.
It would be easier to find leading developers for subgroups of packages (eg. bicycle repair kit, rm generation, ...) willing to raise the quality of a specific subset of packages instead of finding a release manager willing to oversee > 60 packages, which he does not really use (because I don't think we have a single developer using *all* of the packages in the ZTK).
These specific leading developers could report and synchronize with a ZTK release manager, though.
There's nothing preventing people from doing this AFAICT. If someone is interested in pursuing a change to a package or collection of packages, they can do so with or without some organizational structure. Problems would arise only if they proposed a backward incompatible change, which isn't to say that backward-incompatible changes are impossible. Jim -- Jim Fulton