>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: > I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds. > The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them.
> We could have email aliases for bugs so that people can sign up for > notifications, but they would NOT be considered maintainers. Of > course, any would be welcome to become actual maintainers, but as > far as treecleaning/etc goes the package is unmaintained. > If we just rename "herd" to "team" then we have the same issue where > nobody can tell if anybody is taking care of anything because it all > goes into some nebulous bin full of packages where nobody is > responsible for anything in particular, and nobody can speak for the > "team" because it isn't really a team. > How about "contact" instead of team. A package could have any > number of contacts, and they just get CC'ed on bugs, and there is no > meaning to a contact besides being CC'ed on bugs. They're never > assignees - if there is nobody else in metadata besides a contact > then the assignee is maintainer-wanted. Now sure it I get this, so can you explain with a concrete example? Let's say, for a package that currently has <herd>xemacs</herd> in its metadata. Ulrich
pgp27zV7X7x44.pgp
Description: PGP signature
