Charm maintainership in metadata.yaml?

Clint Byrum clint at
Mon Nov 14 22:17:26 UTC 2011

Hi everybody, I hope you are all well and rested after an extremely
produtive UDS and subsequent recovery time. :)

I have just opened this bug:

Affecting both the charm store and juju. I would like to propose that we
add fields to metadata.yaml designating contact information for a loosely
responible party attached to the charm. It would be an optional field,
since local charms won't necessarily need it, but for the charm store,
it should be required as policy.

My first inclination is to have just 'maintainer' that would mimic the
behavior of Debian packaging policy, where the maintainer is the one who
is expected to handle changes to the charm, and any non-maintainer-changes
would be to correct critical policy violations and large sweeping
transitions within the charm store.

This is not to be confused with the branch owner. Most branches will
be owned by ~charmers so that we do not have to use 'charm promulgate'
to alter the pointer of lp:charm/charm-name whenever we want to do a
non maintainer change. If a branch is owned by ~charmers, that just
means that ~charmers shares in the responsibility with the specified
maintainer. Likewise, there will be charms with no maintainer that will
be handled much like Ubuntu packages, where the maintainer would just
be charmers at or something like that.

Also for branches that are in lp:charm/ as official charms, but not owned
by ~charmers, we'd still want the maintainer listed, it just would be
the same as the branch owner.

Also, I think we should allow URLs as
maintainers. or should be fine.


More information about the Juju mailing list