[Buildroot] Changes in the Buildroot autobuilders
spenser at gillilanding.com
Mon Jun 17 20:39:04 UTC 2013
> No, I am not in favour of this solution.
> Being a 'maintainer' should be voluntary, opt-in, and explicit.
I think many people would like to know if something they did may have
triggered a bug, not just the maintainer of the package. I'm thinking
about this from the mindset of lets let people know they broke the
> If I send an update or fix to a package does not mean I am committed to
> maintain that package in the long-run. This change can be just a typo or
> something minor, and might not express my interest in the wellfare of
> that package.
> However, if I am really interested in a package (eg. those I've
> submitted, or others that are important to me), then I want to express
> this intent to maintain it explicitly.
> Now, I understand that adding yet more to the .mk can be seen as clutter.
> The alternative to a expressing maintainership in the source would be to
> have the autobuilder website offer a way to subscribe/unsubscribe to
> certain conditions (eg. package, arch...). I think this is a bit
> overkill, and delicate to handle.
I agree this is overkill but if it's possible it would be the best solution.
More information about the buildroot