[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) wrote on 03.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Schwarz:
> > Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> > exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> > of a package). So
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian Schwarz:
> > Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> > exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> > of a package). So this is the case. Whether it `shou
> Furthermore, commas are no good because they're already a separator
> for separate addresses in a single field. (Admittedly we already
> allow a syntax like John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is not
> permitted by RFC822.)
Why?
'John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' s
> Furthermore, commas are no good because they're already a separator
> for separate addresses in a single field. (Admittedly we already
> allow a syntax like John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is not
> permitted by RFC822.)
Why?
'John F. Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' seems to be a valid
Christian Schwarz:
> Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> of a package). So this is the case. Whether it `should' be the case
> needs to be discussed.
Well, it never us
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" where the
"Description"
uniquely defines a set of maintainers, and may be listed on several
packages which are all maintained by the same developers.
The email address has to be some mail alias; all mails sent to that
address have to be forwarded to all m
Christian proposes:
...
> [The last sentence is completely new: Currently, a few people don't have a
> working forward file on master or don't check their mail box there.]
>
> Usually, a package has exactly _one_ maintainer.
>
> Only in rare situations, a package will be allowed to have several
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
