Core and Extras maintainers coordination

[Paul Nasrat]

On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:02 -0700, Nathan Grennan wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 17:54 -0400, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> > I really disagree- and if it is necessary then you can always CC the
> > person in your list mail to make sure but it should not be encouraged as
> > the common method of contact.  Maintainers are not a direct support
> > forum by promoting direct email you're likely to overwhelm people with
> > user support requests via personal email.
> 
>   I am not saying this should be the method used in most cases. Just
> that it is the proper choice in enough cases that having a maintainer
> tag would be nice.

Speaking with my RPM hat on - this is not going to happen unless it goes
in upstream.  The appropriate place for that is rpm-devel-list.

I don't think it's a good idea, say you have a fairly stable package in
FC or FE N, maintainer changes on development tree.  Between FC N and FC
N+1 the maintainer retires from project, a new maintainer steps in.  

Having a maintainer tag be useful would mean a rebuild for no other
reason than updating it as people expect to use it to find out who to
talk to. We'd still need to maintain the bugzilla list for the previous
fedora releases.

This could be implemented with a header extension and some form of
lookaside, to keep it upto date - but look at how well specspo is kept
fresh, it just gets out of sync from reality.

What we could do is implement a very simple xml-rpc tool to talk to
bugzilla to query maintainer for a package - bug I'd consider adding a
tag is the wrong thing to do here.  That really shouldn't be too hard.

Paul