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.
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.
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).