On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 07:39:04AM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > On Mon, 05 Mar 2018 at 07:03:01, Mark Weiman wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 08:21 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote: > > > On 02/23/2018 12:46 AM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > > > > I am not sure whether it is a good idea to use the same button for > > > > disowning a package as a maintainer or as a co-maintainer? What happens > > > > if a user is both a maintainer and a co-maintainer (and what is the > > > > expected behavior)? > > > > > > If it *is* possible to be both, maybe we should fix that instead? :p > > > > > > > It is possible and I will submit a patch to fix that this week. > > > > > Anyway, if you click the disown button we assume you want to ditch the > > > package altogether... if you are the maintainer and want to edit the > > > comaintainer list we have a UI for that already. > > > > > I am not too sure. The current implementation allows the maintainer to > nominate a new maintainer and make himself a co-maintainer (by putting > himself at the end of the list of co-maintainers and disowning the > package).
My thought is that the disown button should not change the co-maintainers if the disowning user is the maintainer. A user that is the maintainer and co-maintainer of a package should have to disown twice to be removed as a maintainer and co-maintainer. I don't think this edge-case merits a second button. Regards, Mikael
