Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#11312 - {archweb} Allow for Multiple Maintainers

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Jud (judfilm) - Tuesday, 26 August 2008, 05:04 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Monday, 19 April 2010, 03:23 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Web Sites
Status Closed
Assigned To Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority High
Reported Version None
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 3
Private No

Details

Description:
Allow for Multiple Maintainers for the Packages
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Monday, 19 April 2010, 03:23 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Comment by Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi (djgera) - Tuesday, 06 October 2009, 03:16 GMT
what about this old task? Is still valid for the current developement mode?
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Tuesday, 06 October 2009, 15:10 GMT
Hmm, I dunno, it doesn't really seem necessary. We all tend to update other packages anyway. I'd say we can close this
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Tuesday, 06 October 2009, 23:47 GMT
I agree. Although, it would be good for getting out-of-date notifications for packages where multiple people do maintain (e.g. kde with Pierre/Andrea)
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Sunday, 06 December 2009, 20:53 GMT
I guess it's good for us to decide one way or the other on this.

My two cents: I am in favor of multiple maintainers, but only as a means to keep us from a) stalling on 1 person to update a package and b) letting us know who's interested/involved in which packages.

It doesn't seem like we have trouble on a) at the moment, and svn makes it pretty easy to tell who falls into the b) category.

So, in short, I think it's the right model, but I think it solves problems we don't currently have.

Do others agree/disagree?
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Sunday, 06 December 2009, 20:56 GMT
I think we can support it without problems, and some packages truly are a team effort. I also think it fits our current development model as well. With the changes I want to make for  FS#17325 , this should be pretty easy to implement as it will remove the 1 to 1 relationship we have for maintainers and packages.
Comment by Paul Mattal (paul) - Monday, 07 December 2009, 00:16 GMT
Sounds good to me. Perhaps if I get a few minutes after bug days, I will be able to jump in to help with things like this.
Comment by Anish Bhatt (anish) - Friday, 02 April 2010, 17:16 GMT
Could we see this ability added to AUR as well ? There too often multiple people maintain a package but it comes down to one person to actually update/maintain it.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Friday, 02 April 2010, 22:33 GMT
The AUR is not relevant here. Please open a bug (or find an existing one) on the AUR project on flyspray.
Comment by Anish Bhatt (anish) - Monday, 05 April 2010, 18:11 GMT
I've dont that a long time ago, but there's no way to escalate that bug and I don't have the skills to submit a patch. I might be wrong, but I thought since this is an archweb bug, applying the same fix to aur interface shouldn't be too difficult.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Monday, 05 April 2010, 18:29 GMT
One is Django. One is PHP. They have *zero* in common (they aren't even hosted on the same server anymore). Please take that discussion elsewhere.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Tuesday, 06 April 2010, 03:34 GMT
@Dan: this appear to be working fine. Can we close this or was there more to implement?

Loading...