| 1 |
On Friday 21 June 2013 20:26:03 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 08:17:38PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > I'm not going into review systems here at all, I'm simply trying to |
| 4 |
> > > have a policy of what changes are welcomed/blocked WITHOUT interaction |
| 5 |
> > > from the listed maintainer(s) of a given package/herd. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > add a new field to metadata.xml that declares the state. make it an enum: |
| 8 |
> > ANYTHING_GOES (the default) |
| 9 |
> > REQUIRES_HERD |
| 10 |
> > REQUIRES_MAINTAINER |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I wish it was that easy. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Despite being ANYTHING_GOES on most of my packages, I don't want people |
| 15 |
> to add giant features like qmail patchbombs; so we need to figure out |
| 16 |
> something like the Debian NMU listing of what's acceptable. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
the maintainers intent has to be machine codable |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Does this need to be coded in the metadata? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
yes. we already have maintainer info in there, and putting it anywhere else |
| 23 |
is doomed to failure. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Does a version bump count as an acceptable trivial change? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
that's up to the maintainer |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives