1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
Right now we're keeping both email addresses (obligatory) and names |
4 |
(optional) for downstream maintainers in metadata.xml. The way I see |
5 |
it, there are three problems with that: |
6 |
|
7 |
1. As noticed on IRC lately, a few devs haven't been listing their names |
8 |
at all, resulting in these names being missing from packages.g.o. |
9 |
|
10 |
2. Not all names are listed consistently. This is especially the case |
11 |
for projects. When you want to group everything by maintainer, which |
12 |
name should be used? |
13 |
|
14 |
3. In the end, listing the same names all over the place is a lot of |
15 |
redundancy. |
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
I'd like to propose that we deprecate <name/> for downstream |
19 |
maintainers, and instead work towards using an additional mapping from |
20 |
maintainer email addresses to their names. |
21 |
|
22 |
a. For projects, we can simply use projects.xml. We already require |
23 |
that all type="project" maintainers correspond to entries |
24 |
in projects.xml, so we should be good here. |
25 |
|
26 |
b. For human maintainers, I think we can use metadata/AUTHORS. This is |
27 |
pretty much killing two birds with one stone -- we could finally getting |
28 |
the file more complete, and at the same time use it to provide names for |
29 |
maintainers. |
30 |
|
31 |
While keeping names in metadata.xml has the advantage that they are |
32 |
immediately available (provided that they are actually listed there), |
33 |
I don't think this is really a show-stopper. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
WDYT? |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Best regards, |
40 |
Michał Górny |