On 09/23/2010 04:30 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 17:38 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Ray Rashif <sc...@archlinux.org> wrote: >>> On 24 September 2010 05:34, Brad Fanella <bradfane...@archlinux.us> wrote: >>>> I don't think what I'm saying here is being clearly understood. :-( >>> Sorry, I missed the whole Det business. All in all, that kind of >>> contribution (what Det appears to be doing) is not encouraged, but it >>> _is_ somewhat of a contribution. From the way I see it, he's just a >>> concerned party, preemptive about the fate of a particular package. >>> >>> >> It's fine. :-) I just wanted someone to confirm my sanity! >> >> Note to readers: This is not implying that help on the AUR is not >> appriciated; rather, if you are going to update a package multiple >> times, please adopt it to make life easier. And use orphan requests as >> a last resort! >> >> Thanks, >> Brad > This is where 'multiple owners' of a package would be useful (I know its > already been discussed a week ago). Besides the maintainer assigning a > secondary maintainer, some maintainers could perhaps be given to option > to say, in effect, "anyone interested can be my second maintainer", but > that person's maintainership does not affect the maintainership of the > first maintainer. > > Or something like that... > The reason I've seen against that is that someone could edit a PKGBUILD in order to include malicious content (not like they couldn't do it already, though only with new/orphaned packages). Overall I do think that the ability to allow multiple maintainers would be a good idea since it allows for group collaboration (similar to how subversion repositories allow multiple maintainers).
Smartboy