[6201] in SIPB bug reports
Re: sipb-nonmem and prospectives with write bits on install volumes in sipb locker
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Salvatore Valente)
Mon Oct 28 18:56:31 1996
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:56:15 -0500
To: hartmans@MIT.EDU
Cc: bug-sipb@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <tslaft6acut.fsf@tertius.mit.edu> (message from Sam Hartman on 28
Oct 1996 18:27:38 -0500)
From: Salvatore Valente <svalente@MIT.EDU>
Sam pointed out that I should have sent notification to bug-sipb
before giving a prospective write access to the sipb-new locker. He's
right that I should have sent notification and asked for consensus,
but I'm not convinced that bug-sipb is the appropriate place. Perhaps
we should create a bug-new-sipb list (which would go away if sipb-new
ever actually replaces sipb)?
Sam also wrote:
I would much prefer if you had given him write access to the
source and build volumes, then installed stuff when he said it was
ready. I don't think this is much extra work, and gives you a good
chance to look at the quality of the release engineering and
maintainability of his builds.
Again, I see your point but I'm not 100% convinced. When any member
or prospective is going to help maintain the sipb locker, sooner or
later he/she will install his/her first program there. I think it's a
good idea for a person's first attempt to be in a locker that's not
actually used by most people, so we have more time to catch mistakes.
To put it an other way: At what point do you think we should start
trusting someone not to screw up?
-Sal.
