| 1 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:04:11 -0400 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > I'm open to all input, but here's some initial questions I'd like to |
| 5 |
> > hear your answers to: |
| 6 |
> > - How should developers, herds & teams communicate how welcome they |
| 7 |
> > are to NMU changes on their packages? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The way I've been doing this is: |
| 10 |
> - packages I maintain through herd -> go ahead and be responsible. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources only lists the kernel herd; while I don't |
| 13 |
think anyone else is unwelcome, I don't see NMU changes as something |
| 14 |
that would happen to it. Since the ebuild could be called optimal, |
| 15 |
changes to it would likely make it perform in an unexpected way. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
More general, I think there are some packages here that have this kind |
| 18 |
of nature; for another instance, the java packages require some |
| 19 |
additional knowledge for which Gentoo Developers have to go go through |
| 20 |
a quiz. I believe users and proxy maintainers not to be aware of this, |
| 21 |
therefore again the changes might sometimes be problematic. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> - if I add myself explicitly in metadata.xml this means I prefer at |
| 24 |
> least reviewing every change that gets in (with some exceptions for |
| 25 |
> trivial changes, like e.g. qt moving category) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I think this should apply to a herd as well, unless otherwise noted. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> [...] |
| 30 |
> > - How do we encourage responsible ownership of changes that cause |
| 31 |
> > breakage? [1] |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Since it is listed in the ChangeLog, I think it implies the ownership. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
With kind regards, |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 39 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 42 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 43 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives