| 1 |
On Thursday 15 June 2006 12:34, 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 |
| 4 |
> > stuff I maintain I put myself as maintainer and the herd I am acting as |
| 5 |
> > part of in herd. My intention there is to say primarily I am taking care |
| 6 |
> > of this and have taken responsibility but if I disappear, am slow or |
| 7 |
> > someone else just wants to bump it etc in that herd then they are also |
| 8 |
> > free to do so. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Well yeah, that's how I read the metadata.xml in such cases... but since |
| 11 |
> some people are suggesting that <herd> is not relevant info wrt |
| 12 |
> maintainership, this attempt for clarification has been proposed. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > May be it would be more correct for me to add the herd alias as a second |
| 15 |
> > maintainer? I think it is good for people to take responsibility for what |
| 16 |
> > they add to the tree and that is my intention there... |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> :=) If a general consent is (games left apart ;) that <herd> is a backup |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> for cases when maintainer is unavailable/goes MIA, and a primary |
| 21 |
> maintainer if there's no <maintainer> tag in metadata.xml, let's just |
| 22 |
> leave it at that, be done with it and save ourselves the hassle... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If we can't agree upon this, then we probably should stick herd alias |
| 25 |
> into <maintainer> tag when that herd _is_ actually willing to act as a |
| 26 |
> maintainer. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The whole point of the herd tag is to say that the herd with that name is |
| 29 |
responsible when the maintainer fails. Herds are NOT maintainers, and the |
| 30 |
email must not be referred to in a maintainer tag. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Paul |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 36 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 37 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 38 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives