From owner-cvs-all  Fri Mar 16  2:48:26 2001
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from peter3.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2184737B719; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:48:22 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au)
Received: from mobile.wemm.org (mobile.wemm.org [10.0.0.5])
	by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f2GAmLp58171;
	Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:48:21 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au)
Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2GAmLh94606;
	Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:48:21 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au)
Message-Id: <200103161048.f2GAmLh94606@mobile.wemm.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4
To: obrien@FreeBSD.org
Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make Makefile 
In-Reply-To: <20010315170243.A52479@dragon.nuxi.com> 
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:48:21 -0800
From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

"David O'Brien" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 04:49:58PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > But things like make(1) dont need this.  Yes, it is nice to have a
> > primary contact for make, but Will doesn't need special powers in order
> > to be assigned PR's or apply patches or work with the NetBSD/OpenBSD
> > folk to get things closer together.
> 
> I guess this is where we disagree.  If one is taking on the
> responsibility to do this kind of work, I think we should stay out of
> their way, as they know where they are headed with the work.
> 
> But I'm not a Core member, so my opinions doesn't matter compared to
> yours in other's eyes when you're hell bent to get rid of maintainership.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion just because I happen to also be a core
member?

And you are quite wrong about me being "hell bent to get rid of
maintainership".  I just want it refined and clarifed, that's all.
I also think it is overused and often for the wrong reasons.  You will
also note that I specifically used your work on gcc as an example of where
it (or something better) *is* needed.  But of the ~110 other MAINTAINER=
tags in the src/* tree, I'm sure I could find a stack that are hardly
**needed** or are pretty much abandoned.  gcc is the perfect example
of where it is needed.  I wont single people out for examples where it
is not **needed**, but there are plenty.

Or maybe I shouldn't even bother trying to explain, as it looks like you've
already made your mind up about what you believe I'm thinking.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message