[oe] TSC minutes for 20101007

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/10/15 Phil Blundell <philb at gnu.org>:

Phil, thanks for your minutes. TSC thanks for the wise decisions.

>
> 3. MAINTAINER(S)
>
> Frans Meulenbroeks requested the TSC to consider whether the MAINTAINER
> field in recipes should be revived, on the grounds that the existing
> MAINTAINERS text file is not performing well and many recipes/distros
> appear to be orphaned.
>
> The TSC considers that the MAINTAINER field has not been a success in
> the past and there is no evidence that it will work better this time.
> The TSC also feels that, since MAINTAINER is included in output
> packages, it would be best left to individual DISTROs to decide how (if
> at all) they wish to set that variable.
>
> However, the TSC acknowledges that the existing MAINTAINERS file is
> indeed stale and of questionable value.  Accordingly, the TSC proposes
> to start with a fresh copy of the file and invite active maintainers to
> migrate their entries from the old one.

Actually the request was to add MAINTAINER in distro and machine conf
files and in recipes, and I also indicated that in my opinion at least
for distro and machine it is good to know who is the owner.
We seem to have some stale distro's (see
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2010-August/022698.html)
and I also feel that we have some stale machines.

Note also that there are ways to define the value in different ways.
E.g. I can image a # comment in the .conf file.
Restarting MAINTAINERS is also possible.

BTW the root cause of my request is not the because I want to have the
MAINTAINER field in the recipe.
Idea is to know whom to contact in case there is an issue, and make it
clear when a distro or machine (and to a lesser extend a recipe)
becomes orphaned.
Since distro's (and to a lesser case conf files) can pin recipes it
seems more important that it has an identified maintainer.
>
> 4. Speed of removal
>
> Richard noted that he feels the pace of removal has been too slow.
>
> Chris noted that the pace of development has been too slow in general,
> and that removals are just one part of this.

Should we discuss this at OEDEM ?

Best regards, Frans