| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2019, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Upstream developers can be listed already now in the <upstream> |
| 4 |
>> description (per GLEP 68). Should they be listed twice now, only to |
| 5 |
>> indicate that they are to be CCed on bugs? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> This is happening already. I'm not saying it's perfect but I don't see |
| 8 |
> anyone working on a better solution either. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> And yes, I'm talking about real life situation when the only |
| 11 |
> <maintainer/> in the package left was this 'upstream watcher'. |
| 12 |
> I suppose an alternative solution there would be to return to explicit |
| 13 |
> logical marking as <maintainer-needed/>. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Many metadata files have that anyway as a comment, which is far from |
| 16 |
perfect. So yes, I'd say that explicit <maintainer-needed/> is better |
| 17 |
than <maintainer type="not-really-a-maintainer"/>. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Alternatively, how about calling that type "upstream" instead of |
| 20 |
"watcher"? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ulrich |
Archives