-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23/11/12 10:00 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >> On 23/11/12 09:32 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >>>> On 22/11/12 11:22 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:22:10PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 11:11 Sun 18 Nov , Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>>>>> Here's a list of every package where I'm a maintainer >>>>>>> and there is no herd listed (but their might be other >>>>>>> maintainers): >>>>> I didn't say I was dropping any of the packages, merely >>>>> making an explicit list of packages I maintain, that other >>>>> developers are welcome to touch - if they want to take them >>>>> over explicitly, that would be great too. >>>> >>>> >>>> .. For certain things, I think it would be very beneficial >>>> for this to be true (other dev's welcome to touch) across the >>>> tree. Maybe if there is enough general support for it, we >>>> should change our default of "never touch a maintainer's >>>> package without permission of the maintainer/herd", to "OK to >>>> touch unless package metadata explicitly requests not to" >>>> ...? And we can put a tag in the metadata to indicate this >>>> (or even to indicate what other dev's can and can't touch -- >>>> ie, can touch *DEPEND, can bump EAPI, cannot add features, >>>> cannot bump)? >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> What certain things do you have in mind? In wich situation do >>> you see a simple "May i touch the package?/ok for this patch?" >>> as too much to do before touching a package? >> >> >> This works, and when, say, myself and the other dev are on irc >> it's very quick, but then if I don't write it down or communicate >> it to my other couterparts in the herd this permission gets lost >> in the shuffle. I'm just suggesting that if we put it in the >> metadata then it'll be easier to track. > > You can already add a comment in the ebuild or metadata.xml to > explicitly allow everyone to touch it, so there is nothing needed > to allow you or anyone else interested in it doing this now. > > Just reverting this default probably wont happen, since it just > means additional work and issues without any real benefit (like > mass commits to add the notes, missed additions and others touched > the package and other problems). > On 23/11/12 10:10 AM, hasufell wrote: > I tend to agree with tommy. It's also difficult to reflect your > attitude regarding your ebuilds being touched, cause it may differ > depending on the subject of the change and who makes the change. So > in the end it may boil down to a conversation anyway. > > For things like your subslot example I am wondering if it could be > possible to do a dev-announce that packages will be touched by a > group of devs, cause of important migration and that maintainers > who don't feel comfortable with that can require a bug/patch. > > While waiting for answers a few weeks you have the time to test > that stuff in an overlay instead of reporting tons of bugs.
All good points. Anyone else care to weigh in or does this seem to be the consensus of everybody? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlCvlLYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD9CAD9FTZBbNUlVDGMDTvojD49nmSq lVz/ZJboibVwNSOWLXsA/jKs9taDeiPcXjArgTrvI5qxGvf/5V95zO0frjg0DCLU =WKz3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
