On 2/8/2016 1:47 AM, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > > It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent > maintainer for something that has not actually happened.
I've seen it happen several times. I'm not accusing Torsten of thinking this way. I am saying I want any proposed maintainer to prove they can maintain it. By that I mean: fix it first. Fixes can come from anyone, they don't have to have the title of maintainer. >> I think the maintainer must have an expert level knowledge of the ports >> true and there are probably not that many people that can actually >> maintain this script. > > That would explain the lack of maintainers. Well, that, and it's > written in sh, the Not-A-Programming-Language That Time Forgot(TM). Wasn't this presented as a "pro" in the preceding post? :) > Have similar requirements been set for maintainers of any other port? Irrelevant/non-comparable if the other ports are not documented in the handbook. > In the past, calls for maintainers have gone out when important ports > needed them. I don't recall that happening for portmaster, at least not > up to now. The situation has been well known (especially to anyone that filed a PR) but it should be pretty clear now. John _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
