alanocallaghan
commented
2 years ago That sounds very sensible, if we're splitting up maintenance I think it's important that everyone involved stays at least vaguely aware of the other sub-books so that style & content can remain roughly harmonised.
We could trade PR reviews between maintainers for significant changes, where IMO significant means a package change that isn't basically 1-1, or as you say adding or removing material. I'd suggest that maybe the authors of the original material can be consulted for any difficult cases? Or perhaps send sig reviews to authors for a release cycle until they're happy to hand off reviews to maintainers.
btw it might make sense to have organisational issues/discussion in the main OSCA repo
@PeteHaitch @Alanocallaghan @lgeistlinger There is significant interest in using OSCA for teaching in mid-June. Perhaps for that goal, and surely for longer term concerns, we'll need some process for managing significant changes -- e.g., when an upstream package is lost, or there is interest in adding some material. I am open to your suggestions, but I wonder if some kind of pull request review discipline would be desirable?