Yes, using log info seems good enough for finding related users.
I was thinking to hydra notifications, which are also linked to this
maintainer field.
But I guess that a maintainer not active on github will not want to
receive hydra notifications,
so both are related.
Could you elaborate more on how you plan to implement this ?
Who will be responsible to maintain maintainers ;-) ?
Do you plan to automate it somehow ?
-- Layus.
On 02/09/16 23:16, Shea Levy wrote:
Why can't people use the commit logs to see who is knowledgeable? I
believe we should have some way to denote "this person has committed to
make reasonable efforts to keep this package working properly", and the
maintainers field seems the right fit.
But anyway, limiting 3 to release-small or whatever important subset we
choose is a good change even if we don't go all the way.
~Shea
Layus <layus...@gmail.com> writes:
Hi Shea,
I like this idea, except for the part where you forcefully remove
maintainers.
I have always seen maintainers as knowledgeable on the package, not
bound to reply on issues about it.
Just ensure that X is big enough :-).
I really like this idea if we limit (3.) to release-small packages or
some subset of core packages.
-- Layus.
On 02/09/16 22:22, Shea Levy wrote:
Hi all,
I think a few changes might improve package stability a bit:
1. Add a nixpkgs config setting to throw an error on packages with no
meta.maintainers
2. Work to reach a point where a significant subset of nixpkgs (say,
release-small) is allowed on this list.
3. Remove maintainers after X weeks without reply on issues they're
tagged in about packages they maintain
4. (Optional) Separate out maintainers by system
Thoughts on these?
~Shea
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
