On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-09-10, o godz. 07:53:31 Rich Freeman napisał(a): > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > Personally I would vote for simply have a <maintainer> tag pointing to > > > the alias but we would still need to keep a list of real maintainers for > > > that alias as usually not all people listed in the alias are willing to > > > maintain the packages. > > > > I think the solution to this is that maintainers can be either: > > 1. Devs - identified by their email address. (simple enough) > > or > > 2. Projects - identified by their email alias. > > or > > 3. A proxy maintainer identified by email address (in which case > > either a dev or project must also be listed, potentially including the > > proxy maintainer project). > > 4. A mail alias that is not project :). For example, we have clang@ for > easily aggregating all clang-related build failures and other bugs but > it isn't a formal team.
As an incremental solution, what about a <watcher> tag in metadata.xml with the same format as <maintainer> except that being a watcher doesn't imply a willingness to *do* anything about a project, it just means you want to be notified of changes and added to the CC list. Then devs can sign up to maintain or watch packages without using herds. Folks who find herds convenient can continue to use them with as implied maintainers [1] (or implied watchers, I don't really care). Folks who don't find herds convenient can leave them and just add their maintainer/watcher tags directly. Then reap herds if/when they go empty. I don't see the need for a dramatic change here, or even one that requires much consensus building. Or is a <watcher> tag controversial? I'm not sure how the bugzilla CC lists are generated, maybe it would be terribly complicated to iterate over maintainers + watchers? Cheers, Trevor [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92877 id:1410348781.5850.7.ca...@gentoo.org -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
