Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:30:52 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: PLEASE REVIEW: MAINTAINER policy addendum to porters-handbook Message-ID: <20040108223051.GZ8322@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <1073600861.752.65.camel@gyros> References: <1073599686.752.62.camel@gyros> <20040108221340.GY8322@submonkey.net> <1073600861.752.65.camel@gyros>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:27:41PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 17:13, Ceri Davies wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:08:06PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > Attached is a patch to the porter's handbook that spells out the > > > policies regarding maintainer timeout, AWOL maintainers, and special > > > privileges granted to portmgr@ and so@. Can someone please review these > > > changes, and let me know if they are okay to commit? Thanks. > > > > Looks fine from a docbook point of view, Joe, but I think perhaps > > "holidays" could be better defined; do you mean "the maintainer is on > > holiday", or "public holidays"? If the latter, whose? > > I was referring to public holidays. MY main point here was big holidays > like Christmas where a lot of people are generally traveling or AFK. > > > > > > + <para>If the maintainer of a port does not respond to a an update > > > + request from a user after two weeks (excluding holidays), then > > > > I wouldn't normally be picky, but this is a policy definition. > > You're absolutely right. Do you have a suggestion on how this can be > clarified? Thanks. Perhaps "excluding major public holidays"? Ceri -- [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE//dobocfcwTS3JF8RAt82AKCtn2iWVMGL+9+yb7b5LK7j44vOhACfRM0a 5LhhP/7gVj4rm78qlR2nIU4= =0vi1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040108223051.GZ8322>