1 |
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:42 AM Florian Schmaus <flow@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> It appears that we have at least two options here: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> A) Establish that the default is non-maintainer-commits-welcome, and |
7 |
> introduce a <non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/> metadata element. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> B) Declare the default to be unspecified and introduce two metadata |
10 |
> elements: <non-maintainer-commits-welcome/> and |
11 |
> <non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/>. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I think you are proposing A) here, but please correct me if I am wrong. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Personally I would tend to B). But I have no strong opinion on this, as |
16 |
> long as some kind of signalling is established. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> How do others feel about this? |
19 |
|
20 |
What about <non-maintainer-commits-welcome-but-talk-to-me-first/>? I |
21 |
guess that is what we're calling "disallowed" but that seems to have a |
22 |
connotation that devs don't want contributions, when they just want to |
23 |
be aware of what is going into their packages before it happens. |
24 |
|
25 |
Deferring maintenance to bumps is the one use case that came up in the |
26 |
thread that seems likely to be pretty common. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Rich |