[Dev] Rotating build sheriff duties?

[Ted Leung]

I like this *less* than I like the sheriff idea.  It sets a "be good  
or else" kind of tone, which might be okay in a purely corporate  
environment, but is not the kind of tone that I would like to see in  
an open source project.

Ted

On Dec 7, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
> On Dec 7, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>>
>> The rotation seems like a nice theory to solve the same issue, but  
>> in practice it seems unlikely that any given sheriff-of-the-day is  
>> going to be particularly enthusiastic about confronting such  
>> issues.  After all, why argue today when you can let it slide till  
>> tomorrow?  This will just further exacerbate the problem of a lack  
>> of social pressure and continue to enable the idea that this is  
>> just bureaucracy or whatever excuses are being used.
>>
> I've seen teams where the "build monkey" was the guy who last broke  
> the build.  That guy would have to keep the job until somebody else  
> broke the build.  This provided real incentive to check things  
> out.  Team members groused about having the job but not too much at  
> all, and often the build monkey *would* implement some system fixes  
> while he was in the job.  Overall I got the impression that team  
> was very happy with the system as it raised quality overall.
>
> Lisa
>