simonpj at microsoft.com
Fri Dec 10 12:51:36 CET 2010
| Here's a proposal: don't have mailing lists maintain libraries.
| Calling libraries@ a maintainer is a bit of a misnomer:
| * libraries@ doesn't clean up the code.
| * libraries@ doesn't write tests.
| * libraries@ doesn't consider APIs for completeness.
| * libraries@ doesn't polish documentation.
| Libraries maintained by the mailing list are only maintained thanks to
| individuals (the Simons, Ian, other people with commit access) do some
| spring cleaning outside the libraries process.
| My suggestion is that every library has a dedicated maintainer (or
| two), empowered to make changes to the library. That means that
| everyone want like every change they make, but it's much better than
| the alternative.
I agree with this. There could be more than two maintainers, but they should be named individuals. If a library has no individuals willing to take it on, maybe we don't need it!
More information about the Libraries