Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
> <blizin...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Committed (with tweaks) in r911893. Thanks
>> About the tweaks -- I can see that it's a custom to point at a
>> specific person maintaining specific set of packages. In my patch, I
>> pointed at a page specific to the package; this page always lists the
>> current maintainer. Our packages are built from a common source code
>> repository, and it's not unheard of maintainers taking over each
>> other's packages. The package will be always distributed by OpenCSW,
>> but the specific maintainer may change in the future.
>>
>> In this case, I'll add it to the package documentation that when
>> somebody takes over the package, they need to update subversion's page
>> as well.
>
> I think it's fine to just say "OpenCSW team" (or whatever moniker you
> prefer) as the maintainer and provide the general list contact to the
> OpenCSW team. I don't think it matters who the individual is as long
> as someone on the OpenCSW team (via whatever preferred mechanisms you
> have) is able to answer questions if a user has issues with the
> package.
I would second this. And I would have said exactly that ("OpenCSW" or
"OpenCSW team"), but I wasn't quite sure what contribution and attribution
system was in place there. If a more generic team name such as one of these
would be appropriate, we can certainly tweak our Packages page and avoid
future out-of-syncness if the actual maintainership shifts around.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
