On Feb 22, 2015, at 19:21, Karl Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would be wrong to, e.g., call me the owner of administration,
> or rms the owner of Emacs or Jeff Bailey the owner of tar,
> so don't do that in any event.
OK.
Though there are few existing cases of names being used for owners:
vcs:~# awk 'NF==2 && !($2 ~ /@/)' /srv/git/project-list | head
administration.git Savannah+Hackers
autostrap.git Sylvain+Beucler
cflow.git Sergey+Poznyakoff
checksum.git Tong+Sun
cjk.git Werner+Lemberg
color-theme.git Xavier+Maillard
coreutils.git Jim+Meyering
emacs.git Jim+Meyering
erc.git Michael+W.+Olson
freedink.git Sylvain+Beucler
> Furthermore, I think I would suggest uniformly using
> [email protected]. Per GNU standards, that address is always supposed
> to exist and be monitored for bug reports. (Although I know some
> packages do not do so, but that's a different problem.) There is no
> other per-package address like that.
There are several packages (gnu included) which have other lists for more
general discussions, and not for bugs.
There's "[email protected]" for coreutils, which is listed as "general usage
and advice",
and similarly, there are "help-PKG" or "PKG-discuss" or "PKG-users" etc.
Would you think these are more suitable for initial contact, or should it
always by the "bugs-PKG" list?
> Also, that way the info could be automatically created. We don't want
> to create yet more places that maintainers are supposed to insert
> redundant information.
The script tries to find the 'most suitable' mailing list, the results look
mostly reasonable for the ~350 projects which have mailing lists (
fencepost:~agn/projects-owners/projects-owners-mailinglists2.txt ).
Shall I update those?
Thanks,
- Assaf
