On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I thought we were generally agreed we wanted to get rid of herds.
>> The goal wasn't to rename them, but to get rid of them.
>> We could have email aliases for bugs so that people can sign up for
>> notifications, but they would NOT be considered maintainers.  Of
>> course, any would be welcome to become actual maintainers, but as
>> far as treecleaning/etc goes the package is unmaintained.
>> If we just rename "herd" to "team" then we have the same issue where
>> nobody can tell if anybody is taking care of anything because it all
>> goes into some nebulous bin full of packages where nobody is
>> responsible for anything in particular, and nobody can speak for the
>> "team" because it isn't really a team.
>> How about "contact" instead of team.  A package could have any
>> number of contacts, and they just get CC'ed on bugs, and there is no
>> meaning to a contact besides being CC'ed on bugs.  They're never
>> assignees - if there is nobody else in metadata besides a contact
>> then the assignee is maintainer-wanted.
> Now sure it I get this, so can you explain with a concrete example?
> Let's say, for a package that currently has <herd>xemacs</herd> in its
> metadata.

That would depend on whether xemacs became a project or not.  The
first part of my proposal [1] was to review the list of herds and
decide which ones were going to become projects, and then review the
list of packages and let developers sign up to maintain packages that
didn't have a non-herd maintainer.

So, if xemacs herd wasn't going to become a project, and nobody signed
up to maintain it, then in your example xemacs@g.o would become a
contact and the package would be assigned to maintainer-needed.

If xemacs decided to become an active project then it would become a
project and would be considered maintained.

If xemacs decided not to become a project but one or more developers
or projects stepped up to maintain it, then xemacs would become a
contact and the maintainers who added themselves to metadata would
become the maintainers.

If you're not actually going to fix the herd problem, then rather than
renaming "herds" to "teams" you might as well leave the broken herds
in place so that somebody else can actually fix them later.  :)

1 - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/93587/


Reply via email to