Re: Checking for rocks up

[Hisham <h@...>]

On 3 April 2013 02:23, steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Jay Carlson <nop@nop.com> wrote:
>>
>>   This is api_compatible >= 1.5.
>> but the actual information you have to work with is
>>   Jay Carlson says, "This is api_compatible >= 1.5."
>
>
> Which is why the rockspec format needs two email fields: author and
> maintainer (like in LuaDist).  We may not be the most modest people on the
> planet, but we would hate to implicitly claim that this package is ours
> only.  With this small change, a packaging culture can appear.  An
> enthusiastic rockspec writer can then happily wrap up useful modules without
> confusion about authorship.

"maintainer" is the entry for the rockspec maintainer. Contact
information for the authors/maintainers of the project can be obtained
through the URL in the "homepage" field (I found it a more flexible
way of doing this than "author", which implies the code is written by
a single person, which is often not the case in collaborative
environments (and an "authors" array would have complications of its
own). )

The documention does say that "maintainer" refers to ther rockspec and
not to upstream, but I still take the blame for naming the
"maintainer" field ambiguously. Sometimes verbosity is better: in
hindsight, "rockspec_maintainer" and "project_homepage" would have
been better choices.

-- Hisham
http://hisham.hm/