On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project > > does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are many > > such packages in the tree that are managed by developers that are not part > > of the project. The web-apps project gets to decide what happens to the > > packages grouped in the web-apps herd, but we neither have the right (nor > > the desire) to tell other developers that they can't add web-based packages > > to the tree; nor do other developers require our permission before adding > > packages to the tree. > > Again, you are confusing herds and projects. > > Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the > tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are > going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the > herd. Why? Because it is a game, silly.
Why do no games' metadata.xml specify games@ as the maintainer? I thought it was because <herd>games</herd> implies this already, but if it doesn't, then dozens of games can be considered unmaintained right now, and fair game for anyone to mess with without approval. Are you sure you like this interpretation of 'herd'? You're probably right that herd is supposed to mean what you say it does, but existing practise, even by yourself, is very different from it. -- [email protected] mailing list
