On Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:1004AM +0200, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
> Greg Beaver wrote:
> >Martin Jansen wrote:
> >> some months ago we had a discussion about adding a new maintainer role
> >> for people that are no longer actively developing a package. We
> >> couldn't come to a conclusion about how to call this role and there was
> >> no outcome of the discussion.
> >>
> >> I'd like to bring this topic up again and I suggest that we introduce a
> >> new role "inactive" for the new 2.0 version of package.xml: This should
> >> make the people happy who objected against the superior term "emeritus"
> >> and we will finally have a way to flag inactive (doh!) maintainers.
> >>
> >> The changes on the installer side are minimal, but some work has to be
> >> done on the website code. I will of course take care of that.
> >> Comments?
>
> ><lead user="cellog" name="Greg Beaver" email="cellog@xxxxxxx" active="yes"/>
> ><maintainer role="developer" user="somebody" name="Doofus McFoofus"
> >email="yeehaw@xxxxxxx" role="developer" active="yes"/>
>
> It seems that your mojo is "Why make things simple..."
> I like Martin's suggestion better :)
I guess that the biggest advantage of Greg's solution is the ability to
track the "maintainership history": Within my suggestion, there is no
way to figure out if the inactive maintainer was a lead developer or
just a helper before he became inactive. Within Greg's suggestion this
is actually pretty easy.
Concerning the usage of tags vs. attributes, I'd also prever using tags
(like wo do today).
--
- Martin Martin Jansen
http://martinjansen.com/
|
