Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:59:04 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers] Message-ID: <20050729105904.GC73490@isis.sigpipe.cz> In-Reply-To: <20050728170401.GA9534@soaustin.net> References: <C3B81AFDB8A5DFB5AB566CC4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <42E81050.7090305@cs.tu-berlin.de> <66A226C3557B48ED535E3FED@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20050727230523.GB54954@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728154248.GA943@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20050728164111.GA66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728170401.GA9534@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
# linimon@lonesome.com / 2005-07-28 12:04:01 -0500:
> I no longer have the statistics online but from the last time I went
> through this it is about twice more likely that an unmaintained port:
>
> - has PRs against it
> - is broken
> - is out-of-date
I cannot dispute the latter two, but have you included these in your
calculations?
When people see the port is maintained:
- they wait for the maintainer to fix/update the port instead of
submitting a patch
- they communicate directly with the maintainer
- they don't bother at all, because the maintainer won't respond
anyway (applies to specific maintainers)
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050729105904.GC73490>