Re: The end of an era, and the dawn of a new one

Ian Lynagh <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:32:05PM +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> (Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
>> 
>> Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the lines that Ben suggests. If it works well it would
>>  a) spread the load
>>  b) broaden a genuine sense of ownership
>>  c) because of (a) and (b), perhaps encourage more people to participate
>> 
>> What do others think?
> 
> "owner" is a very strong word: I think other projects have had problems
> where e.g. owners have found themselves without time to deal with
> patches submitted, but have been unwilling to let anyone else touch
> "their" code.
> 
> Perhaps we could have "maintainers" instead?

I agree with Ian here. 

Code ownership is not necessarily a Good Thing. In fact, it is often discouraged in modern approaches to software engineering. Why? Because it creates a barrier for the non-owners to contribute to a code base, especially if we would start to introduce procedures such as an obligation for the owner to review all patches to *their* code base.

This is particularly awkward in an open source project. If somebody is busy (or on holidays) for a month, nobody can push patches that touch that code.

GHC's development model always struck me as rather anarchic, and it has worked well for GHC. Of course, it is common courtesy to discuss any major changes or new language features with all stake holders. That has always been the case and, I am sure, we'll continue that.

I like the "Tsar" idea that SPJ started with the Performance Tsar(s). Instead of assigning ownership of code (like in a land grab), let's define areas of responsibility. Many of these responsibilities (like performance) will touch on a cross section of the code base.

Manuel