CleverMouse wrote:
The second option is the choice that I defend, and it requires that many persons have the write access to configs - and if this is implemented for night-build configs, why we need another scheme for binaries?
Because the joint access
(= equal responsibility) is only one side of the bigger problem.
hidnplayr wrote:
Another problem we need to address is that almost everything can be compiled in russian or english, they should be consistent..
There are also a lot of programs wich are not on the floppy distribution.
One needs to be very familiar with particular souces/codes/data to monitor all the changes related and keep the binaries up-to-date.
One person cannot be an expert in everything, that's why it might make sence to subdivide the work to several sectors, and ask every active developer to manage his/her sector solely
(= distributed personal responsibility). If he/she is ill, too busy or whatever unable to manage his/her part of work, than we all can re-distribute the load eventually.
CleverMouse wrote:
the existence of dedicated "night-builder" means centralized variant, which, as the history shows, sometimes breaks - it seems that currently there are no good candidates for this post. The same applies to the dedicated "Publisher" - what if he is ill or has abandoned the project?
In the way I've proposed, the
Night-Builder will not play such an important and critical role as he did before.
Ideally, even a robot can do it if all the binaries are managed properly.
In a real world we all could carry this duty in monthly shifts/rotations (worst option: elections).
_________________
Евангелие от Иоанна: стих 1Code:
; В начале было Слово:
B32: mov ax, os_stack ; Selector for os