>>>>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2019, Michał Górny wrote: >> Upstream developers can be listed already now in the <upstream> >> description (per GLEP 68). Should they be listed twice now, only to >> indicate that they are to be CCed on bugs?
> This is happening already. I'm not saying it's perfect but I don't see > anyone working on a better solution either. > And yes, I'm talking about real life situation when the only > <maintainer/> in the package left was this 'upstream watcher'. > I suppose an alternative solution there would be to return to explicit > logical marking as <maintainer-needed/>. Many metadata files have that anyway as a comment, which is far from perfect. So yes, I'd say that explicit <maintainer-needed/> is better than <maintainer type="not-really-a-maintainer"/>. Alternatively, how about calling that type "upstream" instead of "watcher"? Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
