| 1 |
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't know if this is a really unpopular viewpoint, but for a lot of stuff I |
| 3 |
> maintain I put myself as maintainer and the herd I am acting as part of in |
| 4 |
> herd. My intention there is to say primarily I am taking care of this and |
| 5 |
> have taken responsibility but if I disappear, am slow or someone else just |
| 6 |
> wants to bump it etc in that herd then they are also free to do so. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well yeah, that's how I read the metadata.xml in such cases... but since |
| 9 |
some people are suggesting that <herd> is not relevant info wrt |
| 10 |
maintainership, this attempt for clarification has been proposed. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> May be it would be more correct for me to add the herd alias as a second |
| 13 |
> maintainer? I think it is good for people to take responsibility for what |
| 14 |
> they add to the tree and that is my intention there... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
:=) If a general consent is (games left apart ;) that <herd> is a backup |
| 17 |
for cases when maintainer is unavailable/goes MIA, and a primary |
| 18 |
maintainer if there's no <maintainer> tag in metadata.xml, let's just |
| 19 |
leave it at that, be done with it and save ourselves the hassle... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If we can't agree upon this, then we probably should stick herd alias |
| 22 |
into <maintainer> tag when that herd _is_ actually willing to act as a |
| 23 |
maintainer. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
More clear now? :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
jakub |
Archives