[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Updated co-maintainership proposal -- guidelines



Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Comments?


First of all let me say that I'm very happy that this has become a "guidelines" document and not a set of hard rules. I think the name guidelines is wrong though, as currently we already have :
* Packaging Guidelines
* Package Naming Guidelines
* Dist Tag Guidelines
* Package Review Guidelines

Which are must follow rules, not "guidelines" as used in your proposal.

The new parts look good, I still see little value in the:
"=== Don't (co-)maintain too many packages ===" and
"=== Other aspects of co-maintainership ===" pieces, they make the whole document way too long to read with little added value IMHO.

One last note:
" * co-maintainers all get listed in the last field in owners.list.
Note: currently owners.list is locked-down so changes need to be
requested through the wiki, but once the package database is live this
limitation should be removed."

Aren't we changing the owners.list format, so that co-maintainers can be listed in the owners field, clearly seperating maintainers and observers?

Regards,

Hans


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]