Re: proposal: add "packagers" field (list of strings (names)) to package definition

[Florian Paul Schmidt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/02/2015 05:50 PM, Andreas Enge wrote:

> The problem with attributions is that it is also exclusive of
> others who might contribute to the package otherwise. It can create
> tendencies to "own" packages, which creates a barrier for others to
> modify the package; so inactive maintainers can become a big burden
> to the progress of the project as a whole.

Um, it's a list that can have more than one entry :) If 300 people
touched a particular package definition, why not have 300 people
listed (if they felt inclined to add their name)? :) Also note that a
packager is very different from a maintainer.

> 
> On the contrary to your statement, I think that Guix is
> extraordinarily inclusive and welcoming for contributions;
> newcomers may immediately suggest patches to all existing
> packages.

I didn't say it wasn't (though I do have some qualms with the mailing
list workflow which might scare quite a few people off - especially
people that were born in this millennium, aside from email being a
fundamentally broken technology anyways - I'm an old fart that's used
to them and even I was weary to sign up to yet another ML). I was
saying there's a unique opportunity of it being even more so :)

But it's just a proposal to ponder a bit.

Flo

- -- 
https://fps.io
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWXzvCAAoJEA5f4Coltk8ZTAQH+gJX0Rawc4wkItYwpQmPRKFh
zeupF9EXcRAHIGDNe0UYI0uJNQVmnIosqJYHowm/9tAXcueCsYQuemrF051XQdUI
Afby4FHIkfux6x8Exg4VygAxkOpYPfO5rxrdgtkJx8pMsGvkYGmpjOGn6Qjev+um
apL2QgnO6pw1AktL+ilxqepHV4j88J5rfPRfQqdh8RqftMvLHxtt9nXeJNbjRtXX
eWRU8TTppu+o/hxKKPy/1OZO3HT7FF93qj1hd/IzYqL8i8iiVy+Cgvcsgy1cW4Zo
cKQu1NlEYcvoOrLdN8Ni94j5u2wgGcKfeHZl2L1iIX9XECNbL3E/axEeCNjiOCA=
=IKVx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----