On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 8:42 AM Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It appears that we have at least two options here:
> A) Establish that the default is non-maintainer-commits-welcome, and
> introduce a <non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/> metadata element.
> B) Declare the default to be unspecified and introduce two metadata
> elements: <non-maintainer-commits-welcome/> and
> <non-maintainer-commits-disallowed/>.
> I think you are proposing A) here, but please correct me if I am wrong.
> Personally I would tend to B). But I have no strong opinion on this, as
> long as some kind of signalling is established.
> How do others feel about this?

What about <non-maintainer-commits-welcome-but-talk-to-me-first/>?  I
guess that is what we're calling "disallowed" but that seems to have a
connotation that devs don't want contributions, when they just want to
be aware of what is going into their packages before it happens.

Deferring maintenance to bumps is the one use case that came up in the
thread that seems likely to be pretty common.


Reply via email to