-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 1, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The fact that Barry found Anthony's process unusable is IMO not a reflection on either Barry or Anthony's code. Release processes seem to be highly personal, even within the same project. My own project (XEmacs) has 3 concurrent processes going at any one time (stable core, unstable core, stdlib). In my time with the project, stable core has seen two RM successions, unstable core has seen four, and stdlib has seen two. In no case did the new RM adopt the tools of any of his predecessors, but in two cases one person was a successor twice, and in both cases they reverted to their old tools. All processes seem to have been of roughly the same quality (my opinion, there are no metrics available).
I agree with all of this, and I definitely never meant to impugn Anthony's hack. However, I would categorize every release tool I've ever used (both bought and built, in a commercial or FLOSS environment) as "a hack". Releasing something as complex as Python is just going to be a PITA, so all the RM is looking for is a hack that fits his hands better and does just enough to lower his threshold of pain, or ToP (tm), to a level where he doesn't want to spend his time waiting for the next step by plunging ice picks into his earholes. I'm sure when Anthony releases Python 2.9 <wink> he'll curse my release tool too. Or he'll do the smart thing and as Stephen suggests, just ditch my pile of crap and resurrect welease. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBR8yAg3EjvBPtnXfVAQIW2QP/e0Ny+l8mYGrOzmVJ1zCDZp9cdvBVgEXB fBWc0UPjyBRhmVBoeZ773R5j/IMlsLCetp2VKDkDCutq4PRo9z78ZjrYE2M2+RZP rigMxReSvv5Nw83kOXRy99jQva0ptjnYw2Gdpd1nhtlVSrRmEXaLnVF52Z2hLgul Q9JkBpg7kr8= =PEaE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----