From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 2 05:54:04 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 19E0216A4CE for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 05:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.netcologne.de (smtp2.netcologne.de [194.8.194.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C16543D49 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 05:54:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from thomas@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org) Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-118-48.netcologne.de [213.168.118.48]) by smtp2.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B0C539F39 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:54:00 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 469 invoked by uid 1001); 2 Jan 2004 13:53:58 -0000 Date: 2 Jan 2004 13:53:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20040102135358.468.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Organization: private site In-Reply-To: <20040102121235.568bdf46@Magellan.Leidinger.net> X-Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports X-Attribution: tms 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: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:54:04 -0000 * Alexander Leidinger [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]: > On 2 Jan 2004 06:16:07 -0000 > tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) wrote: [dealing with "lost" maintainers] >> This is a portmgr@ decision which should be written down somewhere. >> Especially when it comes to the definition of "long time". > > I think this is a "common sense applies" decision. A formal definition > of "long time" would be nice, yes, but so far we (the committers) > typically get it right (read: not too long) when we get bugged enough > (just add a note how long you already try to contact the unresponsive > maintainer). Well, I think it has never been a problem to find a committer to do some intermediate updates when the maintainer does not submit them himself. The problem with www/squid is that the maintainer has a commit bit and I had the feeling that committers are a bit reluctant to mess with their "colleague"'s work when I tried to get my squid updates committed during the last year. And I am a bit formal because of Adrian's commit bit. >> FWIW, I'd like to take the maintainership of www/squid. > > Which email address do you want to use (current maintainer CCed)? It would be . >> > 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. > > I agree... as long as the old maintainer isn't better suited to do it > (e.g. author of the program). I think this can get resolved in a way > which is ok for both if such an issue shows up. Adrian has a much deeper understanding of squid than I will ever get, I guess. It's a pity that he is so unresponsive.