Re: [gentoo-dev] xchat-1.8.2 anomalies

[Chad M. Huneycutt]

Mikael Hallendal wrote:

>>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.
>>
>
>I think this is the way to do it in the long run. We can't keep on
>doing as we do now as the number of ebuilds grow and we get a broader
>userbase which will demand working ebuilds. And it's impossible to
>keep up with everything if your ebuilds gets updated by a lot of other
>guys.
>
I think if we choose to do this, then we had better rethink the incoming 
directory right now.  While it may be okay for a few outstanding 
user-submitted ebuilds, this scheme has the potential to cause a lot 
problems.  What we really need is an unstable cvs tree; then 
user-submitted ebuilds and non-team developer-hacked ebuilds can go 
there until they are verified by 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.
>>
>
>This sounds like a hard way which really doesn't solve
>anything. Becuase if you write an ebuild, I change it a little, sends
>it in. Then AUTHOR will be set to me and whoever commited my changes
>would be in Sponsor: and you will be left out.
>
I think all we need is maintainer.  This is the guy who "puts his rep on 
the line."  cvs log keeps all the other information.  The person you 
really want to complain to about a bad ebuild is the maintainer anyway. 
 Then he can do a cvs log to see who the culprit is and get in touch.

Chad