On 24 Sep 2000, at 12:07, the Illustrious Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Paul,
> âîñêðåñåíüå, 24 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2000 ã., you wrote to me:
> >> Btw, you can start with setting up "Mingw maintainer conner"
> PG> Not sure what you mean here...
> I.e. page with content describing procedure and conventions
> to maintain Mingw project, so we have reference, and newcomers
> know what it will be like to be maintainer.
I hear what you are saying, Paul. Thanks for the
My take on this; if someone wants to become a maintainer for
any project, then it might be an idea to consider providing some
sort of documentation of that particular project.
However, most of the developers which use this list at all,
already have a very good understanding of what needs to be done
in order to maintain any sort of software, regardless of
At the very least, those named as Project Administrators must
have an understanding of what is required for maintaining a
variety of packages.
This sort of understanding is grounded in hands-on experience.
Something many US corporations have categorized, for the most
part, as extraneous to the task at hand. By nature of the fact
that such experience is extraneous, it becomes, for the most
part, meaningless to the task or position that is currently
The sort of experience I am referring to (package, distribution
or application maintenance) and what is required for such a
position is based on skills/abilities which can not easily be
Such skills/abilites also vary dramatically, at least in the
US, depending on the compiler contexts (MSVC projects are not
maintained the same way that Gnu projects are. Revision control
varies from project to project depending on the context of the
revision system being used.).
> >> Other thing to consider is whther SF "Doc manager" should be
> >> used or
> >> not. IMHO, CVS offers more flexibility and ease of usage.
> PG> At this point I will default to cvs. If there is a
> desire, PG> however, or a clear need, I will look into Doc
> Manager a little PG> more fully.
> I guess no. We should use CVS.
For now I am in agreement. Depending on complexities, however,
this may change.
As it stands, I count ourselves, in the capacity of developers,
to be very lucky to already have a great deal of documentation
available for Gnu C/C++, Gnu C/C++ projects (applications,
distributions, maintenance, revision control, etc.) and the
available Win32 API SDK documentation.
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.