Charns with Multiple Maintainers
Greetings everyone, It occurs to me that having a single maintainer of a charm while functional, doesn't offer the best route moving forward for a charms longevity. I would like to propose a format change to the authorship line of charms allowing for more than a single entity to maintain the charm. My initial thought would be to convert the entry in metadata.yaml from a string type to a list type maintainer: - Jon Doe - Steve Doe This seems like it would have larger rippling effects in surrounding projects - charmworldlib and juju-gui come to mind. What do you guys think? Would the above spec work to accomplish the goal? -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
Re: Charns with Multiple Maintainers
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Charles Butler wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > It occurs to me that having a single maintainer of a charm while functional, > doesn't offer the best route moving forward for a charms longevity. I would > like to propose a format change to the authorship line of charms allowing > for more than a single entity to maintain the charm. > > My initial thought would be to convert the entry in metadata.yaml from a > string type to a list type > > maintainer: > - Jon Doe > - Steve Doe > > This seems like it would have larger rippling effects in surrounding > projects - charmworldlib and juju-gui come to mind. > > What do you guys think? Would the above spec work to accomplish the goal? +1. I needed something along those lines the other week for the elasticsearch charm I worked on. Thanks Charles. -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
Re: Charns with Multiple Maintainers
I am all for this as it is more relevant to larger teams that may have multiple individuals involved in the development and maintaining of a charm and it doesn't have any effects on instances where a single maintainer is listed. On 03/03/2014 04:26 PM, Charles Butler wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > It occurs to me that having a single maintainer of a charm while > functional, doesn't offer the best route moving forward for a charms > longevity. I would like to propose a format change to the authorship line > of charms allowing for more than a single entity to maintain the charm. > > My initial thought would be to convert the entry in metadata.yaml from a > string type to a list type > > maintainer: > - Jon Doe > - Steve Doe > > This seems like it would have larger rippling effects in surrounding > projects - charmworldlib and juju-gui come to mind. > > What do you guys think? Would the above spec work to accomplish the goal? > > > -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
Re: Charns with Multiple Maintainers
I would rather it be a string or a list so we don't have to convert all of the charms metadata.yaml to lists. so both of these would still be valid going forward: maintainer: Jon Doe and maintainer: - Jon Doe - Steve Doe However, this brings up a bigger issue. Should maintainer be renamed to maintainers to match the rest of the potentially plural options? Otherwise, +1 to having a list of maintainers. Thanks, Marco Ceppi On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Joshua Strobl wrote: > I am all for this as it is more relevant to larger teams that may have > multiple individuals involved in the development and maintaining of a > charm and it doesn't have any effects on instances where a single > maintainer is listed. > > On 03/03/2014 04:26 PM, Charles Butler wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > > > It occurs to me that having a single maintainer of a charm while > > functional, doesn't offer the best route moving forward for a charms > > longevity. I would like to propose a format change to the authorship line > > of charms allowing for more than a single entity to maintain the charm. > > > > My initial thought would be to convert the entry in metadata.yaml from a > > string type to a list type > > > > maintainer: > > - Jon Doe > > - Steve Doe > > > > This seems like it would have larger rippling effects in surrounding > > projects - charmworldlib and juju-gui come to mind. > > > > What do you guys think? Would the above spec work to accomplish the goal? > > > > > > > > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
Re: Charns with Multiple Maintainers
I think the use of "maintainers" rather than "maintainer" would be appropriate. Would we use it in both instances of a single and multiple maintainers, check for both when doing a charm proof, have charm proof set the use of "maintainer" as opposed to "maintainer" as a warning that gets outputted, etc. On 03/03/2014 04:45 PM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > Should maintainer be renamed to > maintainers to match the rest of the potentially plural options? -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
Re: Charns with Multiple Maintainers
Incoming thread necromancy Have we come to a general consensus on adding a new flag for "maintainers" to list multiple maintainers, and leave "maintainer" in place? What kind of implications does this have when someone adds themselves to "maintainers" with a "maintainer" left in the metadata? are they a sub maintainer? I'd like to have a clearly defined agreed upon request so I can file the bug and champion its resolution. While its not mission critical, I fear this will go stale if we don't move on it soon. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Joshua Strobl wrote: > I think the use of "maintainers" rather than "maintainer" would be > appropriate. Would we use it in both instances of a single and multiple > maintainers, check for both when doing a charm proof, have charm proof > set the use of "maintainer" as opposed to "maintainer" as a warning that > gets outputted, etc. > > On 03/03/2014 04:45 PM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > > Should maintainer be renamed to > > maintainers to match the rest of the potentially plural options? > > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
Re: Charns with Multiple Maintainers
On 11/03/14 16:14, Charles Butler wrote: > Incoming thread necromancy > > Have we come to a general consensus on adding a new flag for > "maintainers" to list multiple maintainers, and leave "maintainer" in > place? > > What kind of implications does this have when someone adds themselves > to "maintainers" with a "maintainer" left in the metadata? are they a > sub maintainer? > > I'd like to have a clearly defined agreed upon request so I can file > the bug and champion its resolution. While its not mission critical, I > fear this will go stale if we don't move on it soon. > My 2c - support maintainer and maintainers equally, make them additive and non-exclusive, and recommend people just have a "maintainers" field which lists one or more maintainers. That way existing charms continue to work just fine, people can add and evolve to the new outline over time. Mark -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
