From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 2 17:18:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7F516A4CF for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:18:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de (krusty.dt.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE [129.217.163.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BF343D4C for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:18:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de) Received: from m2a2.dyndns.org (krusty.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.163.1])B90E219115 for ; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 02:18:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by merlin.emma.line.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 94102A2D6D; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 02:18:40 +0100 (CET) To: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) In-Reply-To: <20040102061607.544.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> (Thomas-Martin Seck's message of "2 Jan 2004 06:16:07 -0000") References: <20040102061607.544.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> From: Matthias Andree Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 02:18:40 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1004 (Gnus v5.10.4) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lost maintainers X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 01:18:53 -0000 tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) writes: > * Sergey Matveychuk [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]: > >> I think we need to make some procedure of taking off the maintainership >> from "lost" maintainers. I mean maintainers who keep silence for a >> long-long time. > > This is a portmgr@ decision which should be written down somewhere. > Especially when it comes to the definition of "long time". There will not be a fixed limit. "long time" needs to be on the order of days for security upgrades, and IMHO they should be committed over the maintainer's head if he's silent for four days, and on the order of weeks for low-priority updates during summer when everyone's on vacation. It would be good if a port had multiple maintainers and the MAINTAINER address was actually a mailing list, for "important" ports. Whatever that means, it's a soft limit as well. Someone said "common sense", although some rules of thumb would ease this process and might help avoid this discussions. >> We can give them back the maintainership if they will back. > > I would not like if someone came back and took the port I just got used > to maintain. Given the long time squid has been sleeping, I'd vote to reassign maintainership for squid. If the original maintainer wants the port back, there are still several options: 1. the original maintainer has an explanation why (s)he hasn't responded (i. e. was in hospital for a long time, for instance, his/her house burnt down, something like that that you don't foresee) and the port can be trusted to him/her again, maintainership transfer is negotiated; 2. re-transfer of maintainership, or the old and new maintainer can team up, and the MAINTAINER is replaced by a mailing list that the two maintainers are subscribed to. The ad-hoc /etc/aliases kind of thing will usually do; 3. the new maintainer remains in charge. -- Matthias Andree Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95