We have a new module basic_auth but there is no issue component or MAINTAINERS.txt entry, as noted by batigolix on #2103035: Review/update hook_help() for the basic_auth module.
Who's maintaining it and shouldn't it be an issue component?
Can we check and make sure all the other new modules are also in MAINTAINERS and issue components too? I checked a while back but I'm not sure the list is correct currently.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #14 | drupal-basic-auth-maintainers-2041885-14.patch | 532 bytes | juampynr |
| #6 | drupal-basic-auth-maintainers-2041885-6.patch | 758 bytes | juampynr |
Comments
Comment #1
klausiA missing maintainers entry is surely no major issue, I hope?
Potential maintainers: klausi, linclark, juampy, crell
Moving to the REST component for now.
Not sure we need another issue component for this? Should all modules get their own issue component?
Comment #2
jhodgdonHow would someone who finds an issue in the basic_auth module know to put the issue in the rest.module component? Yes, each module needs its own issue queue component.
Comment #3
Crell commentedI'm willing to be listed on this module, but only because I was involved in designing the auth system. It's not something I would spend a great deal of attention on, plus I'm already listed multiple times in maintainers.txt.
juampy makes sense if he's willing. Either Klaus or Lin would make an acceptable second IMO. ygerasimov was also involved to some extent, IIRC.
Comment #4
juampynr commentedI am happy about maintaining this module.
Comment #5
linclark commentedIt would be great to have juampy in the list for this since he works on other auth modules too. I'd say Klaus probably has worked more on auth than I have, so would be a better second if he's willing.
Comment #6
juampynr commentedHere you are.
Comment #7
jhodgdonIt looks like all 4 people listed here have agreed to be maintainers, and the patch format is correct, user links all work, so I'll mark RTBC and we can give everyone a few days to file final objections, and then presumably Alex or Catch should commit this to confirm they agree with the choice of maintainers.
Comment #8
Crell commentedActually I was saying that I was willing if no one else was; given the rest of the people on the list there's no need to include me. I won't take it personally. :-)
Comment #9
jhodgdonOK then, we need a new patch.
Comment #10
juampynr commentedLet's wait until @klausi approves been listed. Perhaps I went too fast by submitting a patch including him. I left a message in IRC form him to chime in here.
Comment #11
jhodgdonklausi said in comment #1 yes. :)
Comment #12
linclark commentedI'm in the same situation as Crell. I would if we needed someone, but since it looks like we already have volunteer(s), I'm very OK with not being a maintainer.
Comment #13
klausiI'm fine with being listed.
Comment #14
juampynr commentedHere it is.
Comment #15
jhodgdonComment #16
chx commentedI have an alternative suggestion at #2159937: Remove basic_auth
Comment #17
klausiCreated the basic_auth.module issue queue component.
Comment #18
webchickYay, thanks for offering to step up to maintain this module!
Committed and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!