Jan Dubois wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, David Golden wrote:
Though to be fair, "author" is currently *required*, and I like the
idea that there be a required point of contact. However, I don't like
the idea of a mandatory "resources" field.
How about if it gets renamed "auth" and the description
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 02:53:41PM -0700, Jan Dubois wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, David Golden wrote:
> > Though to be fair, "author" is currently *required*, and I like the
> > idea that there be a required point of contact. However, I don't like
> > the idea of a mandatory "resources" field.
> >
Jan Dubois wrote:
> Jarkko wrote:
>> One point about contact points comes to mind: do we currently
>> allow/mention/encourage *multiple* contact addresses (be they email
>> addresses or something else)
>
> Yes, we do:
>
> http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html#author
>
> | author
> |
Jarkko wrote:
> One point about contact points comes to mind: do we currently
> allow/mention/encourage *multiple* contact addresses (be they email
> addresses or something else)
Yes, we do:
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html#author
| author
|
| Example:
|
| author:
| - Ken
One point about contact points comes to mind: do we currently
allow/mention/encourage *multiple* contact addresses (be they email
addresses or something else)
People change jobs / email providers / graduate, and to better be able to
contact them, multiple addresses is better than a single one.
On
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ
wrote:
> Since we have no consensus on a change of semantic, field extension, field
> renaming or deprecation in favour of something better, I came up with a doc
> patch (attached because Github is down) that merely describes the current
> practice in
Since we have no consensus on a change of semantic, field extension, field
renaming or deprecation in favour of something better, I came up with a doc
patch (attached because Github is down) that merely describes the current
practice in the wild. Some quotations from you that pull into this dire
On Oct 9, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Jan Dubois wrote:
My sentiments would largely remain the same if the field was just
renamed to "auth(ority)", as I would still feel that the original
author
should somehow be mentioned too.
But if it was just "maintainer" then there is no problem dropping
all prev
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, David Golden wrote:
> Though to be fair, "author" is currently *required*, and I like the
> idea that there be a required point of contact. However, I don't like
> the idea of a mandatory "resources" field.
>
> How about if it gets renamed "auth" and the description is "author"
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Ricardo Signes
wrote:
> I'd rather just have one datum: in case of emergency, contact whom? Heck,
> this
> can be a mailing list. Oh, wait, we have a field for that! And we have a
> field for bug tracker and home page.
>
> So, a resource for "mailbox" works for
* David Golden [2009-10-09T16:41:45]
> Simplest: "author" is a list of contact points, which includes
> authors, maintainers, mailing lists, etc.
>
> I'd like to avoid a complex data structure.
>
> If we deprecate author, I'd rather see contacts merged into
> "resources" since we have analogous
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:52 AM, David Golden wrote:
> 22. Clarify author field
>
> Proposal:
>
> I would like to see some clarification of what an author is, especially
> since the numbers of distros
+1 on clarification.
I don't have a strong feel for what to do about.
Simplest: "author" is a
And "contact for security stuff".
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Steffen Mueller
wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
>>
>> 22. Clarify author field
>
> Consider that it's currently, practically used as a "contact" field. I get
> lots of mail that should have gone to a mailing list instead.
>
> Therefo
David Golden wrote:
22. Clarify author field
Consider that it's currently, practically used as a "contact" field. I
get lots of mail that should have gone to a mailing list instead.
Therefore, I'm for:
- Remove the ambiguous "author" field
- Add "contact" field. Potentially with a type asso
On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:52:22]
22. Clarify author field
Proposal:
I would like to see some clarification of what an author is,
especially
since the numbers of distros
Agreed.
* I think there are two things you want to know abou
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:52:22]
> 22. Clarify author field
>
> Proposal:
>
> I would like to see some clarification of what an author is, especially
> since the numbers of distros
Agreed.
>
> * I think there are two things you want to know about the distribution: who
> to contact with
16 matches
Mail list logo
