On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 02:05:47PM -1000, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote: > I think it's a great idea but it needs a solid maintainer. Without a > clear leader it's (probably) going to be a free for all and we'll drown > under bikeshedding issues within a month. But of course that doesn't > mean we'd lose anything trying anyhow. > > Among other things, I'd personally like to see the repo maintainer > enforce sensible and consistent naming for the tools, preferring longer, > explicit names over shorter ones. For instance, I'm sure many of us have > one-letter scripts and if we contribute them all there's bound to be > collisions along with the problem of not knowing at first glance what > each tool does. We could maintain a bash alias file containing > everyone's favorite nickname for each tool.
If we want someone to a dedicated maintainer, I can probably do so. But I believe that we can give everyone commit access, block commits to master and just enforce a system where two reviews are needed before merge. I really don't think more is needed, but as noted; I can probably take some responsibilities if the devs think that is warranted. When it comes to packaging and naming conflicts, I wonder if it's just easier to drop all the supplied files into `/usr/share/archcontrib` or something. Makes it easier to package and doesn't clutter anyone's PATH with a lot of (sometimes) unneeded tools. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
