| 1 |
At 2004-05-28T00:00:34+0200, foser <foser@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 22:14 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > It is questionable in itself that this package clearly had a lot of |
| 4 |
> > > maintenance after the introduction of metadata and it still has no |
| 5 |
> > > metadata.xml & set maintainership trough a herd. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Somehow, I doubt that this is particularly rare. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I doubt it too, but it still is bad that it happens. Maybe this raises |
| 10 |
> awareness once again. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I notice that the example herd in metadata.xml.skel is "no-herd". Is |
| 13 |
this an acceptable default when no herd has yet accepted maintainership? |
| 14 |
What about a default maintainer? Perhaps "nobody@g.o" I realize |
| 15 |
that such entries probably look bad out of context, but it might help |
| 16 |
raise flags where somebody needs to step in and take maintainership. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? |
| 20 |
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. |
| 21 |
--Ghost in the Shell |
Archives