Mailing List Archive

>There has been a question that, that I maybe not doing the
>patch-coordinator jobs correctly.

What? Oh, crikey, this is all my fault. I think you are doing a great
job as "vote coordinator", though I do think you need to follow the
guidelines exactly as to patch naming, deadlines, etc. Its not something
I expected you (or anyone) to get exactly right the first time -- it
will take some practice.

However, the "vote coordinator" and "version builder" are two different
jobs. On the last vote, I was vote coordinator and RST was the
version builder. When you volunteered to be the vote coordinator for
this version, I quite happily agreed. However, I still want someone
with a verifiable build environment and detailed knowledge of the code
to be the version builder. Right now, that means RST until he wants
someone else to do it.

Sorry about the misunderstanding,

.....Roy

On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> Oh, you're a trouble maker Roy :-)
>
> > However, I still want someone with a verifiable build environment
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> eh ?
>
> > and detailed knowledge of the code to be the version builder.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> well that excludes 90% of us (including me)
>
>
> don't you mean you want someone who knows how to use patch, tar, gzip
> and FTP ?
>
> I have confidence in everyone writing to this list that they can build
> a new release. After all, the release builder isn't allowed to alter
> anything; only apply patches.
> Or am I missing something ?

Well, someone in the chain of events should be the sanity checker - just
because someone can write a patch, and that patch works in the context of
the bug it was meant to fix, does not mean that it's the cleanest way to
do things, or that it doesn't conflict with other patches or even go
against the code philosophy. This could be done at patch-collection
time - it is crucial after all to know if two patches on the same ballot
conflict. It definitely has to be done by release build time - and if
approved patches do conflict, they need to be resolved, and I
don't worry about autocracy at that point. If that means the patches
need to be slightly altered, that's fine with me.

My thoughts.

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

> There has been a question that, that I maybe not doing the
> patch-coordinator jobs correctly.

I must have missed that, or else you're reading too much into someone's
innocent comments.

> The point brought up, has been that I do not have a programming
> background. Although this is true, I do know several languages, I
> just have never sat down to write a complete program.

what's a complete program ? :-) have any of us written such a beast ?

> Anyway, I'm not going to make excuses. If anyone else would like
> to second this, and appoint someone else to build the disterbution
> please contact me via email and I'll hand over the patches that I
> have so far.

I'm happy to let you continue. We all have to learn new jobs from
time to time. It's not as if we're trying to put man on the moon,
newbie mistakes happen.

> I'm going to take myself off of the list, so you may speak without
> having to hurt anyone's feelings.

Nah, don't do that.

rob

> >There has been a question that, that I maybe not doing the
> >patch-coordinator jobs correctly.
>
> What? Oh, crikey, this is all my fault.

Oh, you're a trouble maker Roy :-)

> However, I still want someone with a verifiable build environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eh ?

> and detailed knowledge of the code to be the version builder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well that excludes 90% of us (including me)


don't you mean you want someone who knows how to use patch, tar, gzip
and FTP ?

I have confidence in everyone writing to this list that they can build
a new release. After all, the release builder isn't allowed to alter
anything; only apply patches.
Or am I missing something ?

rob

In reply to Rob Hartill who said
>
> > I'm going to take myself off of the list, so you may speak without
> > having to hurt anyone's feelings.
>
> Nah, don't do that.

This looks like the typical storm in a teacup but as a general
comment, never take yourself off a list to let other people talk
about you. If people aren't willing to make comments in your presence
then they simply shouldn't be made in a public forum. Any criticisms
of other participants should be on a technical basis (although this
can sometimes include the "technical" issues of how they interact
with other contributers). Technical criticisms stand and fall on
their merit and there's no reason to not be involved in any such
discussions.

You have to be pretty thick skinned to survive in free software projects :-)

--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)