From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:45 -0500 Message-ID: <87ir088d1y.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204268279 8058 80.91.229.12 (29 Feb 2008 06:57:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Nick Roberts Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 29 07:58:25 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JUzCK-0003eU-Vq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:58:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JUzBo-0006r5-Gr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JUzBk-0006qj-Nx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:48 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JUzBj-0006qF-PN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JUzBj-0006qA-Jn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:47 -0500 Original-Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([66.146.193.61]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JUzBj-0007Pk-99 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:57:47 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51005 ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JUzBh-00089R-Dw; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:57:45 -0600 In-Reply-To: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (Nick Roberts's message of "Fri\, 29 Feb 2008 12\:51\:03 +1300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90837 Archived-At: Nick Roberts writes: > I can't pretend that I've always enjoyed RMS' autocratic leadership > style but it was certainly unambiguous and clear, and showed enormous > stamina covering most questions raised on the list. Now that he's > stepping down, it's not clear, to me at least, what the rules are and > if Stefan and Yidong are going maintain Emacs in the same manner. > Already changes appear to be being made more freely and I feel it > could become chaotic. > > Therefore, I suggest that the MAINTAINERS file is resurrected and > areas of Emacs identified for which responsible maintainers are found. > To some extent this is done aleady and and it would merely formalise > the arrangement. This is probably only necessary for core (C source) > Emacs development, and perhaps fundamental lisp development, e.g., > byte compiler, subr.el, and lisp packages could be maintained in their > usual way. By way of example, it might be helpful to look at the > MAINTAINERS file for Gdb or Gcc, although these are probably too > elaborate for Emacs current needs. I think such a file would also > make Stefan and Yidong's task less onerous. > > Just my two cents. Could you identify the specific problems you think might arise without a MAINTAINERS file? You use "chaotic" pejoratively, but I'm not necessarily convinced :-). It really depends on the kind of chaos (if any). Many projects operate without area maintainers, and do just fine. Having area maintainers can lead to gumption-thwarting territoriality and unnecessary power relationships (I'm not saying power relationships are always bad, but unnecessary ones are). Let's wait until there's a problem before imposing a solution like this. -Karl