From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IH5Mv-000104-Uy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:11:38 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l73MA2FT004284; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:10:02 GMT Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org (c-24-6-168-204.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.168.204]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l73M7Kp3000609 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:07:20 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0C62482F0 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:55:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at twi-31o2.org Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gravity.twi-31o2.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a2MfGgaaFmnr for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.100.35] (dsl211-165-131.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [74.211.165.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF27248079 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VcJt4Q5extrlTTaqHOGM" Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700 Message-Id: <1186178767.8470.47.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-Archives-Salt: 4d0bc425-aaa0-467b-9633-110ef7bb8d7f X-Archives-Hash: 759aebcb76a39049f49ef3e5576e8a6c --=-VcJt4Q5extrlTTaqHOGM Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have maintainers to assure that a package is being taken care of, not to establish some kind of "territory" over that package. Because of this misconception, I would like to come up with and document a listing of things that any ebuild developer can feel free to do to any package *without* maintainer consent. These are generally all minor things, but things that I think are important. I'm going to list off the things that I can think of, and encourage everyone else to speak up if I've missed something. - HOMEPAGE changes - LICENSE changes - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are required to make the necessary changes to add support for your architecture. - Typo fixes - SRC_URI changes - If the source has moved, feel free to fix it. We shouldn't have to wait on the maintainer to fix something this simple. - *DEPEND changes due to changes in your packages - If a package that you maintain moves, splits, or otherwise changes in a manner that requires dependency changes on any other packages in the tree, you should make those changes yourself. You're free to ask for assistance, of course, but you have the power to make the changes yourself without asking permission. After all, you're the one "breaking" the package, so you should be the one to "fix" it. - Manifest/digest fixes - metadata.xml changes There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit more controversial, so I'm asking for input. - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild - (for arch teams) Stabilization of new revisions of an already stable package - An example of this would be being able to stabilize foo-1.0-r2 if foo-1.0 (or foo-1.0-r1) is already stable, but not if only foo-0.9 is stable. So, what do you guys think? --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-VcJt4Q5extrlTTaqHOGM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGs6bPkT4lNIS36YERAq5tAJ9gcnJh+8ngWnTNnkiFVkYR4CccOQCgxBdR qV/khNflt9ndXO2BJy5loYY= =I31+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-VcJt4Q5extrlTTaqHOGM-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list