On Thursday 15 June 2006 12:34, Jakub Moc wrote: > 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.
The whole point of the herd tag is to say that the herd with that name is responsible when the maintainer fails. Herds are NOT maintainers, and the email must not be referred to in a maintainer tag. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpbap1RBELOT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
