GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 752231
Maintainers info seems a little out of date
Last modified: 2015-07-15 16:20:01 UTC
I was poking through at-spi2-atk looking for information about the tests and I noticed the maintainer file doesn't list Alejandro who currently maintains this module.[1] The author file could probably do with an update too.[2] [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/at-spi2-atk/tree/MAINTAINERS [2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/at-spi2-atk/tree/AUTHORS p.s. I thought this module was going to be made into a product in bugzilla?
(In reply to Magdalen Berns (irc magpie) from comment #0) > I was poking through at-spi2-atk looking for information about the tests and > I noticed the maintainer file doesn't list Alejandro who currently maintains > this module.[1] The author file could probably do with an update too.[2] > > [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/at-spi2-atk/tree/MAINTAINERS > [2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/at-spi2-atk/tree/AUTHORS Yes it is somewhat outdated. Mark Doffman has been absent for a long time. Having said so, I'm not a maintainer of at-spi2-atk. Mike and I agreed that if I could, I would help doing patch review on at-spi2-core and at-spi2-atk (as the tests stuff), for the simple patches. But as mentioned, I'm not a maintainer of at-spi2-atk. > > p.s. I thought this module was going to be made into a product in bugzilla? Yes, that was what was asked. But bug 740075 is still open.
A while ago, we decided that, ideally, all of our modules should have at least two maintainers. Currently, Mark and Li are both listed as maintainers, but neither of them have really been around for a long time.
(In reply to Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) from comment #1) > (In reply to Magdalen Berns (irc magpie) from comment #0) > > I was poking through at-spi2-atk looking for information about the tests and > > I noticed the maintainer file doesn't list Alejandro who currently maintains > > this module.[1] The author file could probably do with an update too.[2] > > > > [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/at-spi2-atk/tree/MAINTAINERS > > [2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/at-spi2-atk/tree/AUTHORS > > Yes it is somewhat outdated. Mark Doffman has been absent for a long time. > Having said so, I'm not a maintainer of at-spi2-atk. Mike and I agreed that > if I could, I would help doing patch review on at-spi2-core and at-spi2-atk > (as the tests stuff), for the simple patches. But as mentioned, I'm not a > maintainer of at-spi2-atk. > Oops, I had no idea that was the case! I was always under the assumption that Mike was the at-spi2-core, pyatspi2 and atspi and you were the maintainer of the atk/at-spi2-atk stuff, for some reason; so thanks for clearing the misapprehension up! > > > > p.s. I thought this module was going to be made into a product in bugzilla? > > Yes, that was what was asked. But bug 740075 is still open. Indeed you are right; I'll try to remember to give it a bump if nothing happens soon then and hopefully that might help get it resolved.
(In reply to Mike Gorse from comment #2) > A while ago, we decided that, ideally, all of our modules should have at > least two maintainers. Currently, Mark and Li are both listed as > maintainers, but neither of them have really been around for a long time. In that case, maybe it could still be worth removing those two from the maintainers file in case it confuses people who might want to check for these things?
(In reply to Mike Gorse from comment #2) > A while ago, we decided that, ideally, all of our modules should have at > least two maintainers. True. But as my fatherhood just started, it would be unrealistic to join on the maintainership of another module. Sorry. Perhaps we can retake this in the future. > Currently, Mark and Li are both listed as > maintainers, but neither of them have really been around for a long time. Yes, as Magdalen is saying, probably it would be better to update the file. Perhaps with a "past maintainers" section or something.
(In reply to Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias (IRC: infapi00) from comment #5) > (In reply to Mike Gorse from comment #2) > > A while ago, we decided that, ideally, all of our modules should have at > > least two maintainers. > > True. But as my fatherhood just started, it would be unrealistic to join on > the maintainership of another module. Sorry. Perhaps we can retake this in > the future. Congratulations! > > > Currently, Mark and Li are both listed as > > maintainers, but neither of them have really been around for a long time. > > Yes, as Magdalen is saying, probably it would be better to update the file. > Perhaps with a "past maintainers" section or something. That way the past maintainers could still get credited for their past contributions but the published information gets to stay accurate which seems like a nice way of going about things. Would making sure the past maintainers contribution is gets listed in the AUTHORS file before updating Maintainers be another appropriate way to credit the previous maintainers for their contributions, just the same?
I've updated MAINTAINERS, AUTHORS, and the .doap. Thanks for pointing this out.