[Quagga-users 21] Re: so...

Gernot W. Schmied gernot.schmied at nanorg.org
Sun Aug 3 12:30:03 IST 2003

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: quagga-users-bounces at lists.quagga.net
>>[mailto:quagga-users-bounces at lists.quagga.net]On Behalf Of Gilad Arnold
> My vote is that like the FreeBSD Project, a list of committers be
> drawn up, the list members be selected by vote of the existing
> members.  Anyone can request (or be drafted in) to be a committer who has
> shown
> active participation on the quagga list for a specific time period.
> The code maintainer's required tasks ideally should be mainly that of the
> care
> and feeding of the CVS machine, holding votes, booting off committers who
> trash the playhouse, etc.  Also, to do this
> right you must have 2 development trees - a "release" tree where the
> code maintainer once every few months does a code freeze on the
> "development" tree for a few weeks, the beta testers have at it,
>  then makes a copy of the development tree to the "release" tree
> Let's show Kunihiro how it's supposed to be done!

I like the committer concept and code maintainer as well. The most 
important criteria for the committers list are, that they need to be 
excellent developers and architects, a distributed mastermind so to 
speak, maybe a group of 3 for the very beginning.
I'd just like to point out one issue: There was disharmony on other 
groups about what is considered an "active or valuable 
contribution/contributor", which always is in the eye of the beholder I 
guess. The sheer volume of a person's postings is not necessarily a 
quality or committment criteria, we don't want to upset 
knowledge-lurkers :-). We set the tone here for the future, so let's all 
consider this a delicate issue.
I'd suggest for the release cycle
to stick to the numbering of the Linux kernel. How about a patch freeze
as of August 1st 2003 for Paul's patch collection? A review of the 
patches submitted and a release as 1.0rc1 which should asap lead to 1.0
late August?
1.1 would be the development branch, then 1.2pre, 1.2rc and 1.2 as next
stable release, makes sense?


Dipl.-Ing. Gernot W. Schmied, MS       Network Architecture & Operations
Senior Strategist                      Research Group
mailto:gernot.schmied at nanorg.org       http://www.nanorg.org
PGP Fingerprint: 5D70 5690 47DA 9A21 D07E B9EE C764 C9B7 9B64 B27E

More information about the Quagga-users mailing list