Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:01:27 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <56B7E8E7.5040306@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1602071654250.74300@wonkity.com> References: <56B752FD.6000906@marino.st> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1602071654250.74300@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/8/2016 1:47 AM, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: > > It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent > maintainer for something that has not actually happened. I've seen it happen several times. I'm not accusing Torsten of thinking this way. I am saying I want any proposed maintainer to prove they can maintain it. By that I mean: fix it first. Fixes can come from anyone, they don't have to have the title of maintainer. >> I think the maintainer must have an expert level knowledge of the ports >> true and there are probably not that many people that can actually >> maintain this script. > > That would explain the lack of maintainers. Well, that, and it's > written in sh, the Not-A-Programming-Language That Time Forgot(TM). Wasn't this presented as a "pro" in the preceding post? :) > Have similar requirements been set for maintainers of any other port? Irrelevant/non-comparable if the other ports are not documented in the handbook. > In the past, calls for maintainers have gone out when important ports > needed them. I don't recall that happening for portmaster, at least not > up to now. The situation has been well known (especially to anyone that filed a PR) but it should be pretty clear now. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B7E8E7.5040306>