Subject: Re: Consulting MAINTAINER before updating a package
To: None <tech-pkg@NetBSD.org>
From: reed <email@example.com>
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
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