Re: On maintaining GNU Guix

[Marius Bakke]

Christopher Lemmer Webber <address@hidden> writes:

> 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’s presence and attention, and eventually lead 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.

There are aspects of this workflow that we can adopt today that I
believe would make things easier for contributors.  Specifically, I
think many people would be more comfortable changing the "guts" of Guix
if they could push 'nckx/staging' or 'rhelling/core-updates' knowing
that it would get pulled eventually, without having to know intimate
details about the state of the build farm or bug tracker.

Besides, I've always wanted to do an octopus merge...  ;-)

PS: I am really happy that Rutger has been taking care of Mesa lately.
I hope more people will step up to watch after packages they care about.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature