I would rather it be a string or a list so we don't have to convert all of the charms metadata.yaml to lists.
so both of these would still be valid going forward: maintainer: Jon Doe <[email protected]> and maintainer: - Jon Doe <[email protected]> - Steve Doe <[email protected]> However, this brings up a bigger issue. Should maintainer be renamed to maintainers to match the rest of the potentially plural options? Otherwise, +1 to having a list of maintainers. Thanks, Marco Ceppi On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Joshua Strobl <[email protected]>wrote: > I am all for this as it is more relevant to larger teams that may have > multiple individuals involved in the development and maintaining of a > charm and it doesn't have any effects on instances where a single > maintainer is listed. > > On 03/03/2014 04:26 PM, Charles Butler wrote: > > Greetings everyone, > > > > It occurs to me that having a single maintainer of a charm while > > functional, doesn't offer the best route moving forward for a charms > > longevity. I would like to propose a format change to the authorship line > > of charms allowing for more than a single entity to maintain the charm. > > > > My initial thought would be to convert the entry in metadata.yaml from a > > string type to a list type > > > > maintainer: > > - Jon Doe <[email protected]> > > - Steve Doe <[email protected]> > > > > This seems like it would have larger rippling effects in surrounding > > projects - charmworldlib and juju-gui come to mind. > > > > What do you guys think? Would the above spec work to accomplish the goal? > > > > > > > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
