Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: > I don't know if this is a really unpopular viewpoint, but for a lot of stuff > I > maintain I put myself as maintainer and the herd I am acting as part of in > herd. My intention there is to say primarily I am taking care of this and > have taken responsibility but if I disappear, am slow or someone else just > wants to bump it etc in that herd then they are also free to do so.
Well yeah, that's how I read the metadata.xml in such cases... but since some people are suggesting that <herd> is not relevant info wrt maintainership, this attempt for clarification has been proposed. > May be it would be more correct for me to add the herd alias as a second > maintainer? I think it is good for people to take responsibility for what > they add to the tree and that is my intention there... :=) If a general consent is (games left apart ;) that <herd> is a backup for cases when maintainer is unavailable/goes MIA, and a primary maintainer if there's no <maintainer> tag in metadata.xml, let's just leave it at that, be done with it and save ourselves the hassle... If we can't agree upon this, then we probably should stick herd alias into <maintainer> tag when that herd _is_ actually willing to act as a maintainer. More clear now? :) -- jakub
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
