[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib
jnoller at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 00:27:27 CEST 2009
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Foord <michael at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Le mardi 15 septembre 2009 à 17:14 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit :
>>> Actually I believe I heard from someone other than Laura that required
>>> options were explicitly rejected.
>> This is one of the reasons why I'm against exclusive module ownership.
>> If a reasonable number of people think a feature would benefit the
>> community, the module owner shouldn't be able to veto it on ideological
>> (or whatever other personal) grounds.
> I dislike exclusive module ownership too. We end up in situations where
> modules (like ElementTree) are 'owned' by someone who is absent and no-one
> else is able to (or dares to) touch the code.
There is no such thing as "exclusive" ownership, and there can not be.
I am advocating for owners in as much as I'd like (like Georg) someone
to assign bugs, patches and other things to for a given module.
If an owner, such as ElementTree's chooses to be absent forever, or no
longer be involved - then they are replaced.
We've all(?) worked in business settings and most of us probably
understand the "drawbacks" to "exclusive" ownership. Ergo, that's not
what I am advocating.
However, having someone be the "thought leader, patch reviewer and guy
to send angry emails to when something is so broken it causes
convulsions" would be nice.
More information about the stdlib-sig