On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:54:39AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > Although metadata.xml is one way to do this, since it is more of a social > > thing than a technical one I think it might be better to wikify it instead > > -- each dev can list their "please fix my package" preferences in a per > > package or per anything-with-them-as-maintainer spec in one location. > > > > I tend to think that metadata is the right place for a couple of reasons: > > 1. Somebody who discovers an ebuild with an issue/etc is probably > sitting right in the directory with the metadata file, so the > information is readily at hand. > 2. If somebody was going to have to reach out to the maintainer, the > metadata file would tell them who the maintainer is (both in terms of > projects and individuals). > 3. The file could potentially contain package-specific maintenance > information. Sure, you can stick a page on a wiki that says "for > rich0 in general feel free to touch anything, but be aware that mythtv > upstream is picky about xyz, and be aware that the android sdk has > issue xyz, ..." For somebody with their fingers on a lot of packages > you could end up either writing a book, or just leaving it all out > which could result in people making the same mistakes over and over, > or devs might just opt out of having others touch their stuff because > it is too much of a PITA to explain it all. With the metadata > approach you only define package-level detail. So, if one package is > hands-off, then you simply state so or fail to give permission to > touch it. You could provide other background that is relevant to the > specific package.
I'm adding Robin to this thread, because he wrote up a similar proposal a while back. I don't remember what happened to it at the time, and I do not have a link to it. I am also in favor of the metadata approach. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
