Re: [RFC] Removing MAINTAINER field from recipes

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 23:33 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> After some discussion about the actual meaning of the MAINTAINER field in OE we have
> formulated a proposal:
> 
>   'All MAINTAINER fields will be removed from the recipes in org.openembedded.dev, and
> will only be valid in a distro config file'
> 
> We have a number of reasons for doing this:
> 
>  * A lot of the MAINTAINER fields are stale
>  * Not all people listed in the MAINTAINER fields (want to) have commit access
>  * People have blindly copied recipes without contacting the respective MAINTAINER
>  * Certain MAINTAINER only care about supporting their $DISTRO
>  * The SCM (monotone) holds all the information about who added the recipes and who edited
> them.

What is missing here is the proposed alternative. The idea we discussed
was having a Maintainers file, similar in spirit to that in the Linux
kernel where people can detail areas they're interested in and give some
kind of indication of the type of support they want to give.

For example, in the case of linux-openzaurus-*, I'd consider that I
actively maintain that, and I'd like to be consulted on changes to those
files.

This removes all kinds of policy issues such as "when I copy a .bb file
to a new version, who is the maintainer"? 

It also means when someone creates a branch, be it openzaurus, poky or
something else, they don't have to go through and remove all the
MAINTAINERS. The obvious concern there is .dev maintainers getting mail
about some branch they have no control over and don't want bug reports
about. Changing a single maintainers file is much easier than patching
every .bb file.

MAINTAINER would still exists but would become a distro variable so
distros would still use it to set the maintainer of distributed packages
but since this is usually a distro contact, setting it in a distro.conf
file shouldn't be a problem (and it can be overridden on a per package
basis MAINTAINER_pn-linux-opnzaurus = "").

The format of the maintainers file is yet to be determined and proposals
are welcome. So far the requirements are something simple and consistent
in an easily parsed format (both human and computer parsed). We need to
list a contact, the packages covered and the level of interactivity of
the maintainer (we need a list of these levels?).


By creating this new file, we get the overhaul of the MAINTAINERS we
need and it solves a lot of existing policy issues which we can't solve
with the existing structure so personally, I'm very much in favour of
it.

Regards,

Richard