10 Dec
2010
10 Dec
'10
9:39 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:27:45PM +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Perhaps a good compromise would be for each package to have a maintainer, but for API changes to continue to use the current library process?
That way there is a greater chance that someone will be doing the gardening, and they will be more motivated to ensure that proposals reach a conclusion, but for API changes the community will not be surprised by functions disappearing, appearing or changing.
That would be fine, though I think Johan was arguing that a maintainer would be more motivated if they had a free hand with the interface. I still think the primary responsibility for pushing proposals towards a conclusion should be the proposer's, though.