sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file
- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:34:21 -0500
On Jun 05, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:45:19PM -0700, 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,
[...]
> > > 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 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.
>
> True, but people seem to want _some_ way of claiming maintainership of
> spells. Doing that in the section MAINTAINER file as it's done in the
> mail section has the same problem though.
Well, if we only allow people to claim individual spells in sections that
are maintained, the question of "who keeps these current" is answered as
"the section maintainer", and that's not unreasonable. Doing that in a
section MAINTAINER file like mail does makes the maintainer's job doing so
easy as well. Of course the problem with this is it only lets certain
spells list an individual maintainer and probably raises again the question
of how spells should really be organized.
Attachment:
pgpSnL_y8zFWx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file, Jaka Kranjc, 06/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file, David Kowis, 06/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Jeremy Blosser, 06/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Andrew Stitt, 06/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file, David Kowis, 06/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Jeremy Blosser, 06/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Flavien Bridault, 06/05/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file, Arwed von Merkatz, 06/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/05/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file, Eric Sandall, 06/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Flavien Bridault, 06/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Jeremy Blosser, 06/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] MAINTAINER file,
Andrew Stitt, 06/04/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.