Package Owner #107
-
TLDR
( Now focusing only on
Questions
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 5 replies
-
So this is a discussion we had previously, and with our currently planned solution, we are still open to discussion. But as it stands now here is the answer we have currently agreed on. So ideally we wouldn't be transferring ownership of packages themselves. Because that opens a whole can of worms where someone could say they want ownership of a package, but then later if the maintainer were to come back and want it, or if someone else were to say they want ownership of the package so on and so forth. So we would hope to never manually be transferring ownership. Now the simplest solution here would be to publish the package under a new name, and we are hoping to soon support extra flags on packages, to where if you inform us that your new package under whatever name is the updated and maintained fork of an already existing package, then we could inform the user that the old package is no longer updated, and to use yours instead. The same way that NPM will commonly do when installing older packages. Now the interesting thing here is it's still essentially the same package, so I would be interested honestly if the backend would figure it out when publishing a new version. There is baked in support for trying to work around a package rename, but I can't say with any certainty that it would successfully handle a request when being published by a new author, on a different repo. So we could discuss further but I personally feel the right answer is to publish a brand new package under a new name, and once supported we could add a flag to it. As for your question on the permissions of the PAT token, all that's recommended to enable is the following:
You could assign more, but that's all that the backend will use. This is something I thought was in the documentation linked from the signup page, but I'll double check and see what I can do to add it there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
So this is a discussion we had previously, and with our currently planned solution, we are still open to discussion. But as it stands now here is the answer we have currently agreed on.
So ideally we wouldn't be transferring ownership of packages themselves. Because that opens a whole can of worms where someone could say they want ownership of a package, but then later if the maintainer were to come back and want it, or if someone else were to say they want ownership of the package so on and so forth. So we would hope to never manually be transferring ownership.
Now the simplest solution here would be to publish the package under a new name, and we are hoping to soon support extra flags o…