Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:15:11 -0500 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@tandon.net> To: Lars Balker Rasmussen <lars@balker.dk> Cc: "perl@freebsd.org" <perl@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports with MAINTAINER= perl@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <8787B77F-CC7C-456F-89FF-EF12FEA502A2@tandon.net> In-Reply-To: <376a98e00911230510h3d115a2ey238cd343ed8ab899@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091115011802.GA42096@magic.hamla.org> <376a98e00911230510h3d115a2ey238cd343ed8ab899@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Lars Balker Rasmussen <lars@balker.dk> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Sahil Tandon <sahil@tandon.net> > wrote: >> These ports are maintained by perl@. I am happy to adopt these >> ports if >> perl@ is akin to ports@ in that these ports are up for adoption. I >> don't want to step on any toes so I will submit a PR to make the >> change >> if there are no objections. > > I'm sure everybody who read this thought "Someone else will answer", > so it didn't get done. No, perl@ is not the same as ports@. It's not > generally a good idea to have important ports (like p5-Moose) relying > on a single person or maintainer-timeouts if a sane community is > available to handle the job. Please pass maintainer-ship back to > perl@. > > (Speaking as the former maintainer of p5-Moose, who helped prove the > point made above). Fine with me. Go ahead and reset p5-Moose to perl@. And for posterity, would you explain how a port is defined as 'important' so it cannot be maintained by an individual? Thanks. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil@tandon.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8787B77F-CC7C-456F-89FF-EF12FEA502A2>