On Saturday, 07.11.2015 at 15:17, Krishna wrote: > 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 ?
Well, "maintainer" is obvious as to what it means. If you want to specify a preferred contact method, I'd put "Contact" under the relevant bullet point. > > I'll update leveldb and redis shortly. Ta -mato
