Am 08.01.2004 um 16:06 schrieb TheSin:
not sure I wanted a Co-Maintainer field but was told to list them both, and just cause the PDB ignores it, doesn't make it wrong, maybe the docs sure be revised along with the pdb? So packages need more then one maintainer IMHO
Having two maintainer for a package seems very odd to me. Normally, IMHO, there should be exactly one person/entity responsible for each package. If that person chooses to work together with others on that package, well that's just fine - however, it's an internal matter.
The gnome packages now are maintained by "gnome-core" - but that's still "one entity", only that multiple persons are behind it. The reason for that, though, was (to my understanding) that all the many many gnome package depend on each other in some manner or the other. Having them maintained by multiple persons in the past caused troubles because often if maintainer A wanted to updates his package B and C, he had to wait for maintainer D to update pkg E first... causing a lot of stalls. That problem is avoided by having all the gnome package share a maintainer. It would have been possible to have e.g. Masanori listed as the maintainer of them all. We could then still have maintained the pkgs as a group (a purely internal agreement). However, we chose to make an explicit gnome-core group (since that way, we don't have to rely on a single person to cope with maintainer targeted complaint mails, rather a group can care about them).
It's pretty hard for me to imagine a scenario were a "Co-Maintainer" field would be useful. People would still email the Maintainer, not the "Co-Maintainer". If the maintainer is busy, he still has to forward the mails to his co-maintainer. So I see no direct advantage over handling this purely internal.
E.g. take "mono", owned by Ben Reed. I wanted an updated, I offered him to do it myself, he agreed, and so I updated it. Guess that would make me sort of a "Co-Maintainer" of the package. However, I see no advantage of listing me as such in the .info file.
That said, please folks don't get me wrong: I don't say we can't do this, or it's not a good idea. I just say that I personally don't see the merits. That's not dictatorship, that's an opinion, nothing else :-)
Cheers,
Max
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
