1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 23/03/15 01:22 PM, Tim Harder wrote: |
5 |
> Hey all, |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Having been around for a few years I've inherited or added quite a |
8 |
> few pkgs to the tree that I wouldn't mind other people |
9 |
> fixing/bumping/etc that don't fall into any current herds. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> With that in mind, I think it would be an interesting experiment if |
12 |
> we had a collaborative herd (probably named "collab") that signals |
13 |
> the status that anyone is generally free to fix, bump, or do sane |
14 |
> things to the pkgs with the caveat that you fix what you break. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Anyone else interested in such a setup? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Tim |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
The idea sounds great to me, and is something I've been |
22 |
armchair-lobbying for over the past couple of years as well. |
23 |
Implementation-wise, I share others' views that using the <herd> tag |
24 |
probably isn't a good idea. Where I ran into a wall, however, was |
25 |
exactly what the metadata tag(s) should be. I ended up just keeping a |
26 |
list of devs' that i've talked to over the years that are fine with |
27 |
me/others touching their packages. |
28 |
|
29 |
It would be very helpful IMO to have this per-package in metadata, one |
30 |
way or another. Given all of the possible specifics we could do here, |
31 |
what are people's thoughts on a two-tag approach -- 1, |
32 |
<nmu>{yes,no}</nmu> , for a quick means to see if the primary |
33 |
maintainer is OK with non-maintainer updates; 2, |
34 |
<maintainer-notes>...</maintainer-notes> , for general instructions |
35 |
regarding package maintenance. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
39 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
40 |
|
41 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlURa9sACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCtOwD/ca0Y+wiVVCbl1trBmPRWL4TG |
42 |
JXpjYoQyl0GE2jdU7jMA/3v43v56GF/7WXwNF6CtezuIIACFXsnadRhmv1v6majp |
43 |
=cS5M |
44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |