| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:40:47PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
Content-Description: signed data |
| 3 |
> On Tuesday 15 July 2003 12:37, splite wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:06:09AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Content-Description: signed data |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > > developers for gentoo. Having a single "boss", and a "lieutenant" with no |
| 9 |
> > > structure at all is not going to work. Especially as the amount of |
| 10 |
> > > developers grows. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Works for the Linux kernel. Why do you need more developers? Does every |
| 13 |
> > package in the universe have to end up in the portage tree, with its own |
| 14 |
> > developer? I'm quite serious. Just because someone cobbles up an ebuild |
| 15 |
> > for whatever obscure package, does it have to go in? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Well, Linus has more then one luitennant. And those luitennants also have |
| 18 |
> their own sergeants etc. The kernel development process is surely structured. |
| 19 |
> It has local responsibilities just as gentoo is going to have. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > > We need structure. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > You have structure now. Why make it a full-blown bureaucracy? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> No, we don't (well didn't, as we are trying to set it up now) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I would say that it _is_ set up now (as of the management structure) - |
| 30 |
that's operational right now. There are still growing pains involved, |
| 31 |
but I wouldn't call something that's already in place and operational |
| 32 |
"trying." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 36 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives