Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 07:58:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 201035] Accept more than one maintainer for ports (and issues in bugzilla) Message-ID: <bug-201035-13-DIoV43oUDf@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-201035-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-201035-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201035 Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|New |Closed CC| |erwin@FreeBSD.org Resolution|--- |Rejected --- Comment #7 from Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> --- I'm going to go ahead and take the big hammer and close this. This comes up every year or so, and while it may add some more flexibility in some cases, most of them can be solves with a single maintainer address listed in the port as well. Flexibility comes at a cost of having to maintain the flexibility. Designing and implementing a working solution, that takes care of all corner cases, will be a major task that does not add enough benefit compared to the work that needs to be done. Also remember, that a lot of downstream code (freshports, portsmon, etc.) assume there to be only one maintainer, and these projects also need to be adjusted. If you can present a more concrete use-case that cannot be done with a single maintainer, and a implementation and migration plan, including downstream projects, we may reconsider. But for now, I'd say we have biggest fish to catch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-201035-13-DIoV43oUDf>