From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LmD4G-0003dv-9L for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:17:48 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LmD2o-0001Z9-AQ for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:16:18 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:16:18 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:16:18 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:16:04 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1237885606.5348.8.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <49C92CC7.2080801@gmail.com> <49C93237.7010205@gmail.com> <49C9347C.7010309@balister.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090316 Shredder/3.0b3pre In-Reply-To: Sender: news Subject: Re: Package Maintenance X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:17:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24-03-09 21:01, Chris Larson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Tim Ellis wrote: >> I am happy with whatever the outcome of this is as long as my packages as >> specified in the MAINTAINERS file end up being maintained by me - we should >> start whatever changes by transferring the information there to wherever it >> is destined to go and then assessing the logs of individual packages imho. >> Once a decision has been made getting devs that are listed there to transfer >> the information would be a good way to see who is active and actually wants >> to maintain their packages. >> >> I don't really have a problem with the way it is at the moment to be honest >> and try to contact people using git log on packages and the MAINTAINERS file >> if I have a need to touch other packages, which isn't really that hard! >> > > I don't think the current method is difficult, persay, but rather I'd > like to see: > - More individual responsibility in the project in general, > particularly in class and recipe maintenance. I'm all for that. > - Clearer delineation between what gets the most attention and what does not. This kind of 'passive' QA can be quite usefull, I really hope someone gets Junqians suggestion working so we have some hard data. regards, Koen