We could do development the way a wiki is run. I might not understand what Tier Two is for, but I'm not suggesting a wiki-style way of development (where anyone can get tier two access). I'm suggesting a middle ground, where a tier two doesn't need to ask a tier one to fix a bug, a compilation error or maybe add a new simple feature without sending a small note to bug-hurd with the patch and a description of what the thing does. But _if_ a tier one says that the patch is wrong, then the tier two should fix it accordingly. Basiclly giving tier twos a bit more slack, and some of the responsibility. And a tier one just checks that things are ok. New tier twos would still have to ask about anything before committing.
Note, I only want to see this for the GNU Mach tree if I didn't note that before. I have nothing against wikis, and perhaps even wiki-ish development of software would work. But I don't want to try it here, with this project. I'm against wikis, and wiki-ish development. Nor am I suggesting that kind of development style. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
