RE: Spice Dependency (was: RE: Spice License)

> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[email protected]] 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:32, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > Number 1: By deprecated, do you mean code marked with @deprecated,
or 
> > code that isn't marked so, but no longer considered part of Avalon 
> > proper? I'm fine with removing @deprecated tags from CLI, if that's 
> > what you want, but I'm not fine with pulling it out of the 
> > compatibility project again.
> 
> funny thing is it should not be in the compatability project 
> as I -1'ed that 
> but then again maybe some people are more equal than others.

I consider this one closed by PMC action.
 
> > I'll make the change and leave you in a nice, stable state. 
> > If I fuck up the change, I will fix it. But I don't consider 
> > this - and I see no reason to do so - as a perpetual committment 
> > to fix things in Excalibur CLI.
> 
> And theres the rub. If no one is willing to maintain it in 
> Avalon - why is it in Avalon?

There is no rub - ownership of code is collective, not individual.
However, as an individual, I'm happy to assume the responsibility
of finishing what I start - so if I start making a change to a stable
package, I will leave it in a stable form - success or rollback.

Why do you need to designate individual maintainers of pieces of code?
Isn't that the problem which damn near shattered Avalon previously,
when we had a number of prima donnas and fiefdoms?

/LS