| 1 |
On Thursday 15 June 2006 10:57, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> > On Thursday 15 June 2006 02:33, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> We could require that a herd mail alias be maintained for every herd, |
| 4 |
> >> with the same name as the herd, such that the herd alias lists the |
| 5 |
> >> maintainers of all packages in the herd. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Two notes here: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> - same name as herd requirement doesn't work for stuff like |
| 10 |
> cron/mysql/postgresql/apache... i.e., system accounts. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - needs to be done tree-wide (for packages that have metadata.xml at |
| 13 |
> least :P - ebuilds w/o metadata is topic for another thread). Until it's |
| 14 |
> completed, it's not useful - you still cannot rely upon the assumption |
| 15 |
> that if herd alias ain't in <maintainer>, they don't maintain the thing. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
I don't know if this is a really unpopular viewpoint, but for a lot of stuff I |
| 18 |
maintain I put myself as maintainer and the herd I am acting as part of in |
| 19 |
herd. My intention there is to say primarily I am taking care of this and |
| 20 |
have taken responsibility but if I disappear, am slow or someone else just |
| 21 |
wants to bump it etc in that herd then they are also free to do so. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
May be it would be more correct for me to add the herd alias as a second |
| 24 |
maintainer? I think it is good for people to take responsibility for what |
| 25 |
they add to the tree and that is my intention there... |
Archives