Public SourceMage Discussion List

[David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Stitt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 02:35:12PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
>> On Jun 04, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
>>> there's a quite old bug[1] about getting MAINTAINER files in a state
>>> that we can have per-spell maintainer declarations again.
>>> The basic idea is that we would have a hierarchy of MAINTAINER files,
>>> looked up like this:
>>> - if there's a MAINTAINER file in $grimoire/$section/$spell, use that
>>> - otherwise, use $grimoire/$section/MAINTAINER if it exists
>>> - use $grimoire/MAINTAINER
>>>
>>> The file itself would just have a list of developers who maintain that
>>> grimoire/section/spell, with one developer per line in the format
>>> "full name <the.mail AT domain.org>"
>>>
>>> We currently have a few MAINTAINER files, like in the mail section, that
>>> include spell names + maintainers. The advantage of the above scheme is
>>> that it can be looked up automatically very easily.
>> I guess I'm skeptical of the need for yet another spell file vs. just
>> sticking it in DETAILS at the spell level like we do with BUILD_API, but
>> whatever the Sorcery team prefers works for me.
>>
>> We will want some kind of concept of how we're going to keep these from
>> going stale before we let people start claiming individual spells.  It's
>> too common for people to do an update or two and then disappear, and no one
>> is sure if they really still maintain it or not.  We could only allow
>> individual spells to have a maintainer if the section they are in has a
>> maintainer and that person approves.  That way the management of the
>> maintainer status has a hierarchy as well that is more likely to work.
>> That might kill the point, though.
> 
> I dont really see a point in a *spell* MAINTAINER file. We've had a
> MAINTAINER line in DETAILS before, spells dont really have multiple
> maintainers, certainly any case where that happens now is the exception
> rather than the rule.
> 
> The MAINTAINER line in DETAILS historically served basically no purpose
> since as mentioned by Jeremy, people put their name there then tend to
> disappear. Sure some people do maintain one or two spells, but again,
> thats by and large the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> I guess I just dont see it being of any use, and like last time this
> was attempted, quickly becoming stale. Over time we'll come the same
> conclusion about it as we did last time.
> 
> That being said, if you really want to try it we can see what happens,
> as far as sorcery is concerned, the change only effects gaze. We
> already have a gaze maintainer command that works on a section level.
> Im just notably skeptical given historical trends.
> 
> -Andrew
> 

Why not keep it the way it is? Leave it fairly free form. Tell gaze to
always report the SECTION MAINTAINER file even if the user does gaze
maintainer $spell.

How's that sound?


- --
David Kowis

ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
SourceMage GNU/Linux

Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
find easier ways to do something.
  - Robert Heinlein

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  - Arthur C. Clarke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
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=Y/S4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----