Re: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de>
ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote on 03.02.98 in <[🔎] m0xzlfW-0007zOC@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> Christian Schwarz:
> > Well, first of all current policy says ``Every package must have
> > exactly one maintainer at a time.'' (see section 2.3.2 The maintainer
> > of a package). So this is the case. Whether it `should' be the case
> > needs to be discussed.
>
> Well, it never used to be the case. It must have been added without
> consultation while noone was looking.
I don't remember one way or the other.
> It should be removed forthwith, both because it wasn't properly
> discussed and decided upon and because consensus here during the
> discussion about it was that this restriction should be removed.
However, I do remember that not too long ago, the consensus was that it
should be kept, not in the sense that only one was to work on the package,
but in the sense that one was to be finally responsible for it.
I think this was during the same time as "friends" were discussed. And I
think the idea was that without one "head maintainer", the package could
essentially be effectively orphaned by nobody really feeling responsible.
I'm not sure if this argument really convinces me - single maintainers
seem to fall in this trap at least as often. But that's how I recall the
general consensus. Personally, I don't care much either way.
> So, I'm happy with everything you say except:
> > 2. In some cases a package will be maintained by a group of
> > people. This is an exception to our policy and requires special
> > approval. The "Maintainer:" field for such packages will be of the
> > form "Description-of-the-Maintainer-Group <email@host>" where the
> > "Description" uniquely defines a set of maintainers, and may be
> > listed on several packages which are all maintained by the same
> > developers.
>
> I'd like the sentence `This is an exception ... approval' deleted.
I'm definitely for cutting the approval step here. Either allow this type
of email address, or not, but I don't see why it should clutter -devel.
MfG Kai
Reply to: