Re: [gentoo-dev] xchat-1.8.2 anomalies

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 03:45:48AM +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > What do you mean by "update the Author line".  I agree that we should
> > append our names to the author line, like so #Author: Daniel Robbins
> > <drobbins@g.o> # Chad Huneycutt <chadh@g.o>
>
> I mean what it sounds like. That if I take a version of a script and
> bumps it to a new version and perhaps changing stuff in it change the
> Author-line to my name instead of whatever stood that in the
> beginning. Perhaps this is not needed but since people seem to look at
> Author instead of last commit about who has made the changed I think
> it's better to change Author.
>
> > or if we don't care about keeping a record of everyone who has worked
> > on an ebuild, then how about "Maintainer:"?
>
> This is also an idea. But when should this be changed?
>
> As it is now people change the files that they don't "maintain" which
> breaks all sort of maintainership of an ebuild.

Okay, my suggestion.

Maintainer: will be the maintaining team.
Author: will be the guy from the maintaining team that sanctioned the
script.

Each ebuild belongs to one team. If any one outside the team fixes
anything, it should go through 'incoming' in some fashion then be
sanctioned by one of the team members.

Alternatively, if we're picky about credits (we should be), then
Author: is the contributor who fixed it (who either came with a patch or
wrote the script in the first place) and we can add an
Sponsor: which is a team member who added it to CVS and puts his rep on
the line claiming this script is bugfree.

Might also allow multiple authors for some of the nasty scripts that have
been patched multiple times by multiple people.

.. Or we could just have a global CONTRIBUTORS file somewhere.

Regards,

Karl T