Ühel kenal päeval, K, 03.04.2019 kell 19:35, kirjutas Michał Górny: > My goal here is to make sure that we have clear and correct > information > about package maintainers. Most notable, if a package has no active > maintainer, we really need to have 'up for grabs' issued and package > marked as maintainer-needed, rather than hidden behind some project > whose members may not even be aware of the fact that they're its > maintainers. > > > What do you think?
I agree with most of what was written in the original post, but regarding this point I'd hate to see packages maintained by a project that makes sense to be thrown into a generic maintainer-needed. We need a maintainer-needed project status, and just improve the tooling to notify this. So similar to what Alec said, but I think it's fine to throw them into the generic bucket when the maintaining project was indeed just herd-like. But I don't think we should do that for projects where it makes sense to have the packages grouped under a project. A recent example was/is MATE; an older example is maybe enlightenment. We could mark projects as maintainer-needed and have a script even add <!-- maintainer-needed --> comments in metadata.xml (and a matching script to remove those, once the project status changes); have any maintainer-needed list generation consider with packages marked as maintained by such a maintainer-needed project (with some potential grouping of them together in the list), etc. This could then also be used to signify huge staffing-needs, even if someone is sort-of trying to take care of them within that project. But, as said, I agree with almost everything else mentioned in the thread starter. Mart
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
