From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Stable branch will freeze. Date: 16 Mar 2002 01:08:15 +0100 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87bsdpjrww.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <87vgbywwxp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87bsdpobcr.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016237400 954 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2002 00:10:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16m1lo-0000FI-00 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:10:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16m1kv-0004Wc-00; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:09:05 -0500 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip89.dokom.de ([195.138.42.89] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16m1i7-0004Pi-00 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:06:11 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 27754 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Mar 2002 00:08:15 -0000 Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 46 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:79 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:79 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > From: Marius Vollmer > Date: 15 Mar 2002 20:54:44 +0100 > > Please reconsider. It would be sad to lose your contributions, but I > think we could manage. > > of course everyone can manage (to varying degrees), that's not the > point. the point is that declarations of power [...] My motivation was not to demonstrate or gain power but to take more responsibility. I should have explained myself better when announcing the decision. I can now see that the way I announced my decision to really, finally and utterly freeze the 1.6 branch pissed off the people who were actively improving it. I didn't intent this, of course, and I'm sorry about that. For me, it was a technical decision that should clarify the status of the 1.6 branch and help it to fulfill its intended purpose. Maybe we should have discussed it first, but I knew from the way the 1.6 branch has developed that we would need to be really strict about the freeze if it should have a chance of succeeding. So I just went ahead and demonstrated my willingness to be strict by just announcing that the branch is now frozen, period. > are not as constructive as recording (somewhere): your policy, your > plan, your work-in-progress, your requests for help or collaboration > (if needed), and your general openness to feedback. some of these > can be informally recorded (like in mailing list archives), some are > more useful when detailed in a special place that encourages review > and update. Sometimes it helps just to do things instead of talking about them. > if anyone has read this far, they might be wondering, what is the point > asking for write privs removal? well, the nature of guile (and any free > software) collaborative effort is that there is really no such thing as > removing write privs to the source (people just snarf the repo and hack > local source). the question was an attempt to determine your policy and > maturity level, so as to be able to fine-tune my trust model and plan > for your actions. Thanks for letting me know. What did you deduce from my response? _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel