Re: Releasing 1.0.10, 1.1.5, 1.2.4 and 1.3.3
Karl Fogel wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <email@example.com> writes:
>> I wasn't gathering from the discussion that there was any requirement or
>> assumption that you personally would be responsible for recreating said
>> environments and/or RM'ing the releases for those ancient lines. I read
>> your post as saying, "This is a waste of everyone's time", but was unable to
>> figure out how you could pass such judgment for anyone's time but your own.
> I confess I enjoyed Mike's original mail :-), and thought it was a
> good point...
> But on further reflection, Justin has a point too. A release
> inevitably involves more than just the RM. People drop what they're
> doing and go run tests, so they can sign the tarball. For the sake of
> the project, they reorganize their priorities.
> We want that sort of environment, but it implies that we shouldn't use
> "Hey, nobody's volunteering *your* time, so why are you worried?" as
> an counterargument in most situations. The more we talk about group
> priorities, the more we need to think of "the group's" time.
> This non-technical, warm-and-fuzzy post brought to you by,
-- C-Mike (feeling warmer and fuzzier inside)
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Apr 5 21:11:20 2007
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev