> Contributors - people who contribute in one way or another to the project > Committers - people who have commit access to the project's repo(s) > Maintainers - volunteers from the pool of committers who have stepped > forward to shepherd a single module. This is not a position of authority - but > rather one of responsibility - to ensure coding standards are met, that > accepted patches don't break things, etc. >
So going into that, this is one area where I have difference opinion on maintainer's responsibility. In the write-up, it says "Review, and potentially acceptance, of code changes from the community. The maintainer is responsible for testing that new contributions work and do not break the application, and that the code changes are of high quality." I think the maintainer should be responsible for making sure the process from feature design, code design, code review, to unit testing and integration testing have been followed but I find that "testing that new contributions work" to be challenging for a maintainer. I think the committers need to prove as part of their patch that it doesn't break things. Maintainers can go back and say "Well, you haven't proved this or that" and can give suggestions on how to prove it. What do others think? --Alex
