On 11/25/2012 02:01 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 11/23/12 22:32, Thomas Sachau wrote: >> Ian Stakenvicius schrieb: >>> On 22/11/12 11:22 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:22:10PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>>>> On 11:11 Sun 18 Nov , Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>>>>> Here's a list of every package where I'm a maintainer and there >>>>>> is no herd listed (but their might be other maintainers): >>>> I didn't say I was dropping any of the packages, merely making an >>>> explicit list of packages I maintain, that other developers are >>>> welcome to touch - if they want to take them over explicitly, that >>>> would be great too. >>> >>> >>> .. For certain things, I think it would be very beneficial for this >>> to be true (other dev's welcome to touch) across the tree. Maybe if >>> there is enough general support for it, we should change our default >>> of "never touch a maintainer's package without permission of the >>> maintainer/herd", to "OK to touch unless package metadata explicitly >>> requests not to" ...? And we can put a tag in the metadata to >>> indicate this (or even to indicate what other dev's can and can't >>> touch -- ie, can touch *DEPEND, can bump EAPI, cannot add features, >>> cannot bump)? >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >> >> What certain things do you have in mind? In wich situation do you see a >> simple "May i touch the package?/ok for this patch?" as too much to do >> before touching a package? >> > To me it's random noise, if I'm in the package metadata just do it. No > need to distract me :) > > And there's tons of packages that have a "maintainer" in metadata and > bugs just go into nirvana (like apache)... >
Too many bugs, not enough time. I am sure that the maintainers on those will be thrilled to receive patches.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
