Re: granting temporary permission for releasing packages that need a new release

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:53:53 +0200 "Lukas Smith" <smith@backendmedia.com> wrote: > I don't full agree here. > PEAR wants to leave the responsibilities in terms of decision making > etc with the lead developer. This is the model we offer and this is > the model we should pursue in the future. > > However we also claim to provide high quality packages to our user > base. If open bug reports linger, if fixes to known issues are > committed to CVS but no new releases are made then we have a problem. Yes and no. One point is what Wez said in his recent post here (see Date thread). Another is about "roadmaps", package status and such things. I agree with you when you (Davey&you) say QA should change a package status if the release is broken and/or does not fit stable requirements. All other cases are not concerned. > Therefore there must be sort of an implicit contract, that the > sovereignty in decision making requires that the developer also > maintain his package properly. For now I would like to keep the > definition of"properly" a soft one, which is decided upon on a case by > case basis. Contract? This is the kind of work I do not like in OS. Pay and I'll sign a contract ;-). However stable packages should fit a mimimum set of requirements, that's obvious. pierre