Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items

[Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>]

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

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:08, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 07:16:08PM +0200, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> > > I think the MAINTAINER file in the root of each section is enough. And
> > > HISTORY tells the rest of the story.
> > > Hamish
> >
> > I really agree with Hamish.
> > I suggested it one year ago
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/sm-grimoire/2002-October/000685.html
> > Some gurus did not agree with it but their names are already written in
> > Hall of Fame
> > http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=Hall+of+Fame+for+past+developer
> >s
> >
> > - lace -
>
> I agree that the MAINTAINER field in DETAILS as it's used now is
> useless, but that wasn't what i was proposing. Currently the MAINTAINER
> field is either not present or ignored, i want to change that, so we can
> move around spells more easily without confusing who the maintainer for
> specific spells is. That way the ones who know most about a specific
> spell, or who maintain most of its dependencies are the MAINTAINER of
> that spell in whatever section it may be.

If a MAINTAINER field was necessary for this (HISTORY still tells the true 
story) I am not against using it, but all the wrong usages should be removed 
IMO (sick of being humble so no IMHO today).
It just bothers me that MAINTAINER has a strict meaning and currently the 
field in DETAILS is mostly invalid.
Arwed I do understand what you are saying and I think it  is a good idea on 
the whole. I just want the wrong MAINTAINER usaged stamped out too.
Hamish
- -- 
IRC nick: drmoriarty
SMGL co-conspirator
#Do You SMGL!?
# Linux so advanced it may as well be magic!
# http://www.sourcemage.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ignb8fSufZR6424RAiWtAJ0VT8EBLcegEbhcA/ayWSLOFKD0YQCffn5M
SrYfd+KOE8vNGV+G4ZiMrU4=
=IN+P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----