1 |
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 12:34 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: |
2 |
> Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: |
3 |
> > I don't know if this is a really unpopular viewpoint, but for a lot of stuff I |
4 |
> > maintain I put myself as maintainer and the herd I am acting as part of in |
5 |
> > herd. My intention there is to say primarily I am taking care of this and |
6 |
> > have taken responsibility but if I disappear, am slow or someone else just |
7 |
> > wants to bump it etc in that herd then they are also free to do so. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Well yeah, that's how I read the metadata.xml in such cases... but since |
10 |
> some people are suggesting that <herd> is not relevant info wrt |
11 |
> maintainership, this attempt for clarification has been proposed. |
12 |
|
13 |
*sigh* |
14 |
|
15 |
Who said that? |
16 |
|
17 |
I have not seen that said, *at all* in this thread. What I *have* seen |
18 |
said is that whomever *maintains* the herd is the package's maintainer, |
19 |
except in the case where an explicit maintainer is listed. In almost |
20 |
all of the cases, this is the same email alias as the name of the herd. |
21 |
When you assign bugs to games@g.o it isn't because the people on |
22 |
the alias are a part of the games herd, it is because the people on the |
23 |
alias *maintain* the games herd. It is a subtle distinction, and one |
24 |
that actually doesn't change your practices, since you've already been |
25 |
doing everything "correctly" this entire time. An example of this *not* |
26 |
being the case is apache. You still give the apache bugs to the right |
27 |
people, right? Of course you do, because apache-bugs is listed as the |
28 |
maintainer. |
29 |
|
30 |
> > May be it would be more correct for me to add the herd alias as a second |
31 |
> > maintainer? I think it is good for people to take responsibility for what |
32 |
> > they add to the tree and that is my intention there... |
33 |
> |
34 |
> :=) If a general consent is (games left apart ;) that <herd> is a backup |
35 |
> for cases when maintainer is unavailable/goes MIA, and a primary |
36 |
> maintainer if there's no <maintainer> tag in metadata.xml, let's just |
37 |
> leave it at that, be done with it and save ourselves the hassle... |
38 |
|
39 |
Why is it that you are restating *exactly* what I am saying, but then |
40 |
trying to pretend like I'm not saying what you are saying? The games |
41 |
team has nothing to do with this, because I am saying that we work |
42 |
*exactly* as you expect us to. What I am saying is that the *herd* is a |
43 |
collection of packages. The email alias associated with the herd, goes |
44 |
to *people* not packages. The alias could have any number of people, or |
45 |
other aliases, as its contacts. |
46 |
|
47 |
I guess I need to spell this out so there's no more ambiguity. |
48 |
|
49 |
A package belongs to a herd. The herd is listed in metadata.xml, like |
50 |
it should be. If there is nobody listed in maintainer explicitly, you |
51 |
email the alias associated with the herd. This email goes to the |
52 |
*maintainers* not the *herd*, since the maintainers are people, and the |
53 |
herd is packages. Each herd has *at least* one maintaining project, |
54 |
team, or group of people responsible for it. |
55 |
|
56 |
> If we can't agree upon this, then we probably should stick herd alias |
57 |
> into <maintainer> tag when that herd _is_ actually willing to act as a |
58 |
> maintainer. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> More clear now? :) |
61 |
|
62 |
No. You've gone and changed the practices we have in place now to make |
63 |
it more complicated. |
64 |
|
65 |
Say it with me. |
66 |
|
67 |
Herd == packages |
68 |
Team == people |
69 |
|
70 |
Good. Now say "This requires me to make no changes to how I operate." |
71 |
|
72 |
Very good. |
73 |
|
74 |
Somebody give this man a cookie! |
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
Chris Gianelloni |
78 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
79 |
x86 Architecture Team |
80 |
Games - Developer |
81 |
Gentoo Linux |