From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Lemmer Webber Subject: Re: On maintaining GNU Guix Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:36:03 -0400 Message-ID: <87sgrdrxvw.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87ftnfk7a0.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37264) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hlQoR-0002uv-C4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:36:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hlQoQ-0004EB-G8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:36:07 -0400 Received: from dustycloud.org ([50.116.34.160]:40516) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hlQoQ-0004Cl-Bu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:36:06 -0400 Received: from twig (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dustycloud.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5F126650 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:36:04 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <87ftnfk7a0.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus writes: > This would allow each of the maintainers to better concentrate on > selected sub-projects, and to increase the likelihood of having an > active co-maintainer around when other co-maintainers are unavailable. > We also hope that this change will decrease the importance of any > individual maintainer=E2=80=99s presence and attention, and eventually le= ad to a > more collective and perhaps representative way of arriving at decisions > and breaking ties when necessary. +1! In addition... I think we aren't at the point where it's applicable, but in considering the point where Guix's community grows big enough where many people contributing to the main repository is untenable, I think a move to something like what the Linux kernel does (different people responsible for certain trees) might make sense. I don't think we're there yet though.