| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds. |
| 4 |
> The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> We could have email aliases for bugs so that people can sign up for |
| 7 |
> notifications, but they would NOT be considered maintainers. Of |
| 8 |
> course, any would be welcome to become actual maintainers, but as |
| 9 |
> far as treecleaning/etc goes the package is unmaintained. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> If we just rename "herd" to "team" then we have the same issue where |
| 12 |
> nobody can tell if anybody is taking care of anything because it all |
| 13 |
> goes into some nebulous bin full of packages where nobody is |
| 14 |
> responsible for anything in particular, and nobody can speak for the |
| 15 |
> "team" because it isn't really a team. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> How about "contact" instead of team. A package could have any |
| 18 |
> number of contacts, and they just get CC'ed on bugs, and there is no |
| 19 |
> meaning to a contact besides being CC'ed on bugs. They're never |
| 20 |
> assignees - if there is nobody else in metadata besides a contact |
| 21 |
> then the assignee is maintainer-wanted. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Now sure it I get this, so can you explain with a concrete example? |
| 24 |
Let's say, for a package that currently has <herd>xemacs</herd> in its |
| 25 |
metadata. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ulrich |
Archives