| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds. |
| 5 |
>> The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> We could have email aliases for bugs so that people can sign up for |
| 8 |
>> notifications, but they would NOT be considered maintainers. Of |
| 9 |
>> course, any would be welcome to become actual maintainers, but as |
| 10 |
>> far as treecleaning/etc goes the package is unmaintained. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> If we just rename "herd" to "team" then we have the same issue where |
| 13 |
>> nobody can tell if anybody is taking care of anything because it all |
| 14 |
>> goes into some nebulous bin full of packages where nobody is |
| 15 |
>> responsible for anything in particular, and nobody can speak for the |
| 16 |
>> "team" because it isn't really a team. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> How about "contact" instead of team. A package could have any |
| 19 |
>> number of contacts, and they just get CC'ed on bugs, and there is no |
| 20 |
>> meaning to a contact besides being CC'ed on bugs. They're never |
| 21 |
>> assignees - if there is nobody else in metadata besides a contact |
| 22 |
>> then the assignee is maintainer-wanted. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Now sure it I get this, so can you explain with a concrete example? |
| 25 |
> Let's say, for a package that currently has <herd>xemacs</herd> in its |
| 26 |
> metadata. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
That would depend on whether xemacs became a project or not. The |
| 30 |
first part of my proposal [1] was to review the list of herds and |
| 31 |
decide which ones were going to become projects, and then review the |
| 32 |
list of packages and let developers sign up to maintain packages that |
| 33 |
didn't have a non-herd maintainer. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So, if xemacs herd wasn't going to become a project, and nobody signed |
| 36 |
up to maintain it, then in your example xemacs@g.o would become a |
| 37 |
contact and the package would be assigned to maintainer-needed. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
If xemacs decided to become an active project then it would become a |
| 40 |
project and would be considered maintained. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
If xemacs decided not to become a project but one or more developers |
| 43 |
or projects stepped up to maintain it, then xemacs would become a |
| 44 |
contact and the maintainers who added themselves to metadata would |
| 45 |
become the maintainers. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If you're not actually going to fix the herd problem, then rather than |
| 48 |
renaming "herds" to "teams" you might as well leave the broken herds |
| 49 |
in place so that somebody else can actually fix them later. :) |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
1 - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/93587/ |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Rich |
Archives