| 1 |
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 03:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 02:46, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > One of the reasons herds were introduced was to explicitly see what |
| 5 |
> > > packages lack maintenance. It is possible for the ebuild to be in the |
| 6 |
> > > herd, but be supported by the developer not on the herd. See the <role> |
| 7 |
> > > tag. Also, there can be one-dev herds. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I have a number of specialized packages that I maintain, such as |
| 10 |
> > sys-block/qla-fc-firmware, that cannot be classified as any existing |
| 11 |
> > herd, and are specialized enough inventing a new herd for them would not |
| 12 |
> > really help. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> declaring no herd for maintainership here makes sense ... requiring a <herd> |
| 15 |
> tag and forcing it to "no-herd" keeps things explicit ... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's what I think is best. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> on the topic of finding unmaintained packages: |
| 20 |
> if there is no herd and no maintainer, should we just cut metadata.xml ? or |
| 21 |
> do we recommend people to stick in <herd>no-herd</herd> ? the former would |
| 22 |
> help with people sticking in bogus things like a maintainer of bug-wranglers |
| 23 |
> (really maintainer-needed would make more sense) ... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, we enforce the maintainer tag if herd is no-herd. Then, we only |
| 26 |
allow valid devs, and maintainer-needed in maintainer. That should |
| 27 |
resolve the problem. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 31 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 32 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 33 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 34 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives