| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 07:50 -0600, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 2 |
> Having a heard doesn't necessarily ensure a package will be maintained |
| 3 |
> either. Most of the packages belonging to the net-mail herd is an example |
| 4 |
> of this. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
No nothing ensures it in the end if noone takes responsibility. net-mail |
| 7 |
is a questionable herd in itself, because it covers too many different |
| 8 |
setups i bet and that is the reason noone feels responsible for |
| 9 |
particular bugs coming that way. |
| 10 |
If a herd is created, then there should be a herd lead, the herd lead |
| 11 |
should recruit more ppl if needed. If a herd loses all of it's |
| 12 |
maintainers new devs should be recruited to take care of the herd. At |
| 13 |
this point we can hold certain devs responsible for what goes wrong in |
| 14 |
eg. net-mail. With no-herd noone is. |
| 15 |
Anyway, if it is possible one should even try to have more herds |
| 16 |
assigned to packages. The primary herd does the usual maintenance, but |
| 17 |
secondary herds are backup if something holds the primary herd for too |
| 18 |
long. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- foser |
Archives