| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:42 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Hello, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Right now we're keeping both email addresses (obligatory) and names |
| 6 |
> (optional) for downstream maintainers in metadata.xml. The way I see |
| 7 |
> it, there are three problems with that: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 1. As noticed on IRC lately, a few devs haven't been listing their names |
| 10 |
> at all, resulting in these names being missing from packages.g.o. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 2. Not all names are listed consistently. This is especially the case |
| 13 |
> for projects. When you want to group everything by maintainer, which |
| 14 |
> name should be used? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 3. In the end, listing the same names all over the place is a lot of |
| 17 |
> redundancy. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I'd like to propose that we deprecate <name/> for downstream |
| 21 |
> maintainers, and instead work towards using an additional mapping from |
| 22 |
> maintainer email addresses to their names. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> a. For projects, we can simply use projects.xml. We already require |
| 25 |
> that all type="project" maintainers correspond to entries |
| 26 |
> in projects.xml, so we should be good here. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> b. For human maintainers, I think we can use metadata/AUTHORS. This is |
| 29 |
> pretty much killing two birds with one stone -- we could finally getting |
| 30 |
> the file more complete, and at the same time use it to provide names for |
| 31 |
> maintainers. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> While keeping names in metadata.xml has the advantage that they are |
| 34 |
> immediately available (provided that they are actually listed there), |
| 35 |
> I don't think this is really a show-stopper. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Sounds like a good plan to me. |
Archives