On Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:00 +0200 Denis wrote: > And then only 1 line with Maintainer, like that: > > # Maintainer: Parabola hackers <this mailing list> > Or like that: > > # Maintainer: A specific parabola hacker <Mail>
i agree; but that would be a more significant break from the arch-like convention - it would complicate the diff/merging of most PKGBUILDs - i prefer to keep diffs as minimal as possible - to have only one Maintainer line, would eliminate the helpful hints "# Maintainer (arch):" which indicate where to find the upstream PKGBUILD to merge against On Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:00 +0200 Denis wrote: > some might have compelling reasons to add them > as Maintainer instead of the Parabola project. the most compelling reason, is that some PKGBUILDs are maintained by users - the Maintainer email address, exists for bug reporting - that would only work if we required all packagers to read the mailing list - i think that everyone in the keyring should be required to read the mailing list; but i dont think that was ever made as a matter of policy that is worth considering - i could be convinced to make it policy; but based on the response to this thread so far, that would entail removing most of the people in the keyring now this is quite an important issue - i am somewhat discouraged that no one has acknowledged my proposal to arch to fix this issue upstream - if people are not paying attention to parabola and/or actively contributing; we should consider retiring them - i think at the bare minimum, devs should be participating in important discussions, in order to remain on the "active" roster over-all this is a step in the right direction - i have several other house-cleaning proposal in mind - one of them is related to the Maintainers and Contributors > It doesn't say "don't touch, only <maintainer> can modify it". that is certainly in accordance with adhocracy; but in practice, some PKGBUILD maintainers complain when others modify the PKGBUILD significantly - i have only intervened in cases where the package in the repos is broken, _and_ users complain repeatedly, _and_ the maintainer does not respond to the bug reports - that really should not happen; but it does furthermore, i really should not wait so long for the maintainer to respond; but i do, out of courtesy - IMHO, one valid complaint against an important package should be enough to prioritize it; and more than a week with no acknowledgment from the maintainer is unacceptable - thats not to say that the bug must be fixed within a week; but the maintainer should acknowledge that the bug report exists, explaining if it will not be fixed promptly, and why, or asking that someone else should do it this time, if time is an issue, temporarily checking your email is easy - if a maintainer leaves a bug report open with no acknowledgement for more than a month; that suggests retiring that person from the "active" list; then demoting the package to "team-maintained" - it is very easy to add people back when they do have sufficient time to be considered as "active" - in the real world that person would be reprimanded or fired that was perhaps drifting off-topic somewhat; but adhocracy should not excluded professionalism - there is much we could improve in that way; and i am sufficiently motivated recently, to start making such uncomfortable policy changes _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
