Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:55:05 -0400 From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Wes Peters <wes@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libfetch ftp.c Message-ID: <20000620205505.E34982@argon.gryphonsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9405.961546875@localhost>; from jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 05:21:15PM -0700 References: <xzpn1kgs01v.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <9405.961546875@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 05:21:15PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > MAINTAINERs are also expected to be available in order to invoke that > clause. If they don't provide timely review, it's also more than > acceptable to override them and, if necessary, remove their maintainer > bit. Don't get too comfortable behind that one if you're going to > vanish or otherwise go silent for extended periods of time. Thank you Jordan. I'd like to note that many ports "maintainers" invoke this clause with little or no responses to RFR's. (BTW: I'm not getting involved in the libfetch issue. This is just a general thing Jordan is saying and I'd like to say it also applies to ports.) -- Will Andrews <andrewsw@purdue.edu> <will@FreeBSD.org> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000620205505.E34982>