Message93297
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
>> In order to clear up the inconsistency with maintainer
>> not being a possible meta-data field, I think "Maintainer"
>> should be added to the meta-data. Dito for "Maintainer-EMail".
>
> Do you remember what's the story behind those two fields ?
I don't really remember, but suppose that the field was
added for cases where a package is being abandoned by the
original author and then maintained by someone new.
IMHO, the maintainer could have just added the new contact
details to the author field and a mention of the changed
maintenance to the description.
> I am not sure about the community usage of those since they are competng
> with author and author_email on setup() side
PyPI just shows the "Author" field, so if a package has different
author and maintainer entries, the author field is what's displayed -
not exactly useful, since bug reports and the like should normally
go to the maintainer, not the author.
Adding the maintainer field as well would resolve the issue. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-09-29 14:56:44 | lemburg | set | recipients:
+ lemburg, pitrou, techtonik, tarek |
2009-09-29 14:56:43 | lemburg | link | issue6992 messages |
2009-09-29 14:56:43 | lemburg | create | |
|