| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:25:28 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> |
| 6 |
>> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > Right now, CC'ing a single alias is inconvenient, but under your |
| 9 |
>> > proposal, you might need to CC a dozen or more people instead of |
| 10 |
>> > that alias. |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> That is incorrect. Herds would be replaced with projects, not with |
| 14 |
>> lists of individual (non-)maintainers. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No, it's entirely correct. Killing <herd> but keeping <maintainer> with |
| 17 |
> its current denotation and connotation would mean listing separate |
| 18 |
> actual maintainers. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Is there some policy that says that a project cannot be a maintainer? |
| 22 |
How do we currently handle packages that are maintained by a project |
| 23 |
which doesn't have a corresponding herd? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Why not just stick the project alias in the maintainer field? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I can't find any "denotation" that states that this isn't acceptable, |
| 28 |
but if there is one I'm all ears. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives