Greetings, We've recently encountered a scenario where our verbiage in the unmaintained charm process is a tad confusing and limiting given the scenario that a charm author requests to no longer maintain their charm.
For reference, the document in question is located here: https://jujucharms.com/docs/stable/charm-unmaintained-process Given the scenario that a charm author wishes to maintain their charm and informs ~charmers they will no longer be developing, patching, or updating - essentially abandoned the charm - the verbiage states: 1. File a bug against charm saying “Maintainer needed” 2. Is charm broken? 1. Follow “Workflow for identifying and triaging unmaintained charms” process This particular process includes a 30 day wait period to take *any* action on the charm. What we would like to propose is: A bug be filed for "Maintainer Needed", the charm be moved to ~unmaintained-charms, and a call to arms be issued to the list for a new maintainer. Thus not leaving a potentially broken charm in the charm-store for an extended time-wait scenario, allowing other potential consumers to encounter the unmaintained, and potentially broken charm. If someone steps into the role of maintainership, it's a simple process to put the charm back in the store under the new maintainer. If you have any dispute with this potential change, please respond to this thread. No verbal dispute will constitute acceptance, and we will amend during the Charmer Summit starting Sept 17th. Thanks Charles Butler <[email protected]> - Juju Charmer Come see the future of datacenter orchestration: http://jujucharms.com
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
