Re: Standard description file about maintainer groups
* Frank Küster [Tue, Mar 29 2005, 02:25:03PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Some people call that file MAINTAINERS, some README.svn or similar, and
> > some do not do this at all, so someone needs to ask somebody or get a
> > crystal ball to learn about the repository of the maintainers. And the
> > first way is annoying and your mail with stupid question may be posted
> > on their development mailing list, which is not always the best thing.
> Which *problem* do you want to address with that suggestion? Isn't
Improvements of visibility of how maintainer group works, to make the
life easier for someone who comes along and tries to reach a hand.
> one of the main points of group maintenance that any outsider just
> contacts the group address, and the insiders decide who is going to be
> responsible for a problem? So shouldn't we rather establish a policy
This depends on how each team internaly works. This is desirable for
groups with few packages but not neccessarily for others, with many
packages where different subset of group members care about specific
subsets of the packages.
> that every group-maintained package should have a mailing list in its
> maintainer field?n
This is already beeing done where people see it appropriate.
> Furthermore, listing *current* contributors in a file might be not so
> easy - how often do you need to post to a list to be "allowed in"? Is
I did not talk only (or primarily) about the contact address, it is still
up to the group how the communication inside and with outsiders is
What I meant is a list of various things that are important to possible
contributors: repositories, status web sites.