add lead maintainer #27
Conversation
| @@ -17,10 +17,6 @@ | |||
| "coverage": "aegir coverage", | |||
| "coverage-publish": "aegir coverage publish" | |||
| }, | |||
| "pre-commit": [ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should not be removed, but changed to pre-push. I'd also like to see a better commit message :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@diasdavid why was the pre-commit check removed?
@vmx is pre-push the new pre-commit? I don't think the pre-commit module we use supports pre-push.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@olizilla pre-push is indeed the new pre-commit. You don't need to add the package, it's part of AEgir.
|
@diasdavid @vmx one thought on this before I accept the mantle of responsibility... I feel this specific transference of power might work better if the modules that make up the dependencies of js-cid were considered as a collection (or fiefdom) that were handed to a single lead maintainer, rather than split out... the js-cid maintainer is going to have a better time of it if they can also directly manage multibase, multicodec and multihashes. It look like js-cid didn't make the power transference list, was that deliberate? In general I'm all for this distribution of responsibility, and if neither of you feel strongly about it, then I accept this responsibility gladly! |
|
@olizilla, @vmx was still creating the PRs for the IPLD modules as requested, now it is up to date. I don't think that because js-cid uses multibase, multicodec and multihashes, that it means that only one maintainer has to cover it all. That would mean that in order to maintain js-ipfs, you have to maintain the whole project (which i've been doing but now opening it for others to help). It actually encourages healthy updates from the multiple maintainers to make sure that the assumptions and goals are still the same. |
|
@olizilla I see your thumbs up, I'll take that as a ok to move forward :) |
For ipfs/community#301 (comment)