On 2014-08-29 at 09:59, Mateusz Kowalczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/29/2014 10:04 AM, Vladimír Čunát wrote: >> Also, the commitment of being maintainer of a group of packages seems >> significantly larger than for a single package. The change may rather >> dissuade people from becoming a maintainer at all, as they may be only >> interested in a few particular packages and not e.g. in all games we have. > > Actually I think people are much more inclined to sit down and spend a > few minutes sometimes updating a package or two from their group rather > than putting their own name down specifically on a package and then > having the sole burden of updating it themselves. I also think it makes > people feel ‘I'm in a group of people doing similar so I can always seek > help from them’ as opposed to ‘I'm on my own to figure it out when this > breaks’.
I like the idea of maintainer groups alongside individual maintainers. The familiar downside of group responsibility is that everyone may assume that someone else is handling a particular task. I expect listing an individual alongside the group helps in those cases. Eg, I would keep listing myself for packages I maintain upstream. Anything that groups packages so it's easier to distinguish "failures and PRs that I might be able to help with" from "I have no clue what that is or how to build it" is good by me. In that vein, I appreciate all the recent links to Hydra status pages for Haskell packages. bergey
pgpAjXBQluM3X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
