On 7 November 2015 at 15:13, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, 07.11.2015 at 10:42, Martin Lucina wrote: >> On Friday, 06.11.2015 at 18:10, Antti Kantee wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > So with mato's package autobuilds churning and flagging problems that >> > someone needs to fix, I've been thinking it would be nice if every package >> > had a maintainer (or maintainers), who at least pretended to be interested >> > in keeping the package working. That maintainer would have push access to >> > repo.rumpkernel.org/rumprun-packages so that 1) issues can be assigned to >> > them 2) they can fix the problems quickly. Submitting a package would >> > require becoming a maintainer or finding one. Of course, open source being >> > open source, some maintainers would fade away over time, but at least we'd >> > know who to turn for ones which are active maintained. >> > >> > There's both good and bad in a maintainer model, but at least I wouldn't >> > have to remember who's capable of fixing problems in package X, or >> > designating the last person who touched the package as maintainer du jour. >> > >> > I sort of attempted a "maintainer" template in the mpg123 package, but I'm >> > not quite happy with how it looks. What would be the sensible content? >> >> I think it looks fine for now, would just make it more prominent in the >> README, e.g.: >> >> # Maintainer >> >> Antti Kantee, [email protected], @anttikantee on Github, pwwka on >> #rumpkernel > > Perhaps this is clearer: > > # Maintainer > > * Antti Kantee, [email protected] > * Github: @anttikantee > * #rumpkernel: pwwka > > ? >
Yes. Also, Maintainer -> Contact ? I'll update leveldb and redis shortly. cheers, --krishna -- Rivers know this: there is no hurry. We shall get there some day. -- Winnie-the-pooh
