[csw-maintainers] Our core values: providing straightforward experience to the user

[Peter FELECAN]

Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Am 19.11.2010 um 18:34 schrieb Philip Brown:
>> On 11/19/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>> ...
>>>> So let me share more detail of my experience, and how that benefits my
>>>> position of release manager.
>>> 
>>> Well, nobody said that your contribution [as release manager] to the community is not
>>> valuable.
>> 
>> Choosing the option of "no human release manager", is saying exactly that.
>> (if one presumes that people are choosing that option, with the
>> assumption that quality of packages will not suffer as a result)
>> 
>> It would in some ways bother me more, if a majority of maintainers
>> voted for "no human release manager", and believed in their hearts,
>> "yes, quality of packages WILL suffer, but I dont care, i just want
>> life easier for myself"
>> If the majority of voting members no longer care about package quality
>> as paramount importance, that would be a sign that opencsw has become
>> an organization I would no longer wish to be a part of, or even use
>> products from.
>
> Peter, IIRC we agreed on moving to something similar like
>   http://wiki.opencsw.org/automated-release-process

No. What you refer is "last_edited: 30 Jan 2010" so it predates the
summer summit. The agreed on process is that referred in the wave of
August 14th under the title "Release process (alternative approaches to
a new stable/)" To access the wave, here's the link:
https://wave.google.com/wave/waveref/googlewave.com/w+0tu9vv7tA

> This indeed has no release manager for the first step when the
> maintainer can deliver directly to experimental/ (as in the document,
> not as we use it ATM), which automatically generates new catalogs
> and brave users can install from that. But the migration to
> the following repositories unstable/testing/stable (again as in
> the document) are done asynchronously by the release manager.
> So I think you are suggesting to shift the role of the release
> manager slightly, right?

If that was not clear until now: I'm suggesting the whole elimination of
a human release manager.
-- 
Peter