| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 23/11/12 09:32 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 5 |
> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: |
| 6 |
>> On 22/11/12 11:22 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:22:10PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz |
| 8 |
>>> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> On 11:11 Sun 18 Nov , Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>>> Here's a list of every package where I'm a maintainer and |
| 11 |
>>>>> there is no herd listed (but their might be other |
| 12 |
>>>>> maintainers): |
| 13 |
>>> I didn't say I was dropping any of the packages, merely making |
| 14 |
>>> an explicit list of packages I maintain, that other developers |
| 15 |
>>> are welcome to touch - if they want to take them over |
| 16 |
>>> explicitly, that would be great too. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> .. For certain things, I think it would be very beneficial for |
| 20 |
>> this to be true (other dev's welcome to touch) across the tree. |
| 21 |
>> Maybe if there is enough general support for it, we should change |
| 22 |
>> our default of "never touch a maintainer's package without |
| 23 |
>> permission of the maintainer/herd", to "OK to touch unless |
| 24 |
>> package metadata explicitly requests not to" ...? And we can put |
| 25 |
>> a tag in the metadata to indicate this (or even to indicate what |
| 26 |
>> other dev's can and can't touch -- ie, can touch *DEPEND, can |
| 27 |
>> bump EAPI, cannot add features, cannot bump)? |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> Thoughts? |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> What certain things do you have in mind? In wich situation do you |
| 35 |
> see a simple "May i touch the package?/ok for this patch?" as too |
| 36 |
> much to do before touching a package? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This works, and when, say, myself and the other dev are on irc it's |
| 40 |
very quick, but then if I don't write it down or communicate it to my |
| 41 |
other couterparts in the herd this permission gets lost in the |
| 42 |
shuffle. I'm just suggesting that if we put it in the metadata then |
| 43 |
it'll be easier to track. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
And -maybe- if the majority of dev's feel it appropriate, then we |
| 46 |
switch "deny,allow x" to "allow,deny x". |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 50 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlCvjK8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDNggEArddTaH+ng/JhbH2AIq0ecI3n |
| 53 |
qZipGtd4j8wmrQZIhz0BALVAsDcVOoBsrqGk2KpwGCag0o3QTSd/nx+4Y9i/Ddnw |
| 54 |
=MbHC |
| 55 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives