Subject: Re: Consulting MAINTAINER before updating a package
To: None <>
From: reed <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/18/2007 21:08:58
> 	For virtually all, if not all, of my packages I am happy
> 	for people to update them to new versions without having
> 	to contact me first. I'm available to be contacted if people
> 	have any questions or want to check something before
> 	updating, but I do not mind if they don't.
> 	So the options we have are:
> 	a) 'consult before update' (Marc's suggestion above)
> 	b) defaults to 'consult before update', and have some other
> 	   value to indicate its 'available for questions'
> 	c) 'available for questions'
> 	d) defaults to 'available for questions', and have some
> 	   other value to indicate its 'consult before update'
> 	Its more important to me that we pick one, so it has a well
> 	defined meaning, than which one. (My preference would be
> 	d, b, a, c)

Since I have had maintainers complain that I assigned PRs to them, another 
option is:

	I am the maintainer, but don't assign PRs to me for any
	reported issues for my package.

I don't agree with that myself though. They probably should not be listed 
as the MAINTAINER. I do accept that some maintainers may have temporary 
reasons why they can't be responsible for PRs -- such as being on 
vacation and the PR is a security issue.

I don't mind if someone else updates my packages. But I do prefer to have 
some contact first simply because our time is valuable and several times I 
have spent hours updating a package and testing and then have another 
developer commit an update before me (for packages where I am the 
MAINTAINER). This was nice that they did this for me. And I appreciate it. 
I just am disappointed because I could have used by time elsewhere if I 
had known in advance.

  Jeremy C. Reed