[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Checking for rocks up
- From: Hisham <h@...>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:48:06 -0300
On 3 April 2013 02:23, steve donovan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Jay Carlson <email@example.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
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.