Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:16:43 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: irc/xchat: limit icon blinking time Message-ID: <4FE518FB.1000802@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgme9QoKKrictteBaipGKDq5ZTycL9d6_f2X4XVYNgyQFQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4FE2315C.50706@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxg=W=QhJ0%2BLJ_pudZmJo5yTWoWQj77NWKjWXx1sP1pLzbw@mail.gmail.com> <4FE2F673.2080201@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgme9QoKKrictteBaipGKDq5ZTycL9d6_f2X4XVYNgyQFQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/22/2012 10:46, Eitan Adler wrote:
> As a general rule ports should not maintain or develop software. If
> you would like to continue development we need to become the
> _upstream_ developer and maintain a fork or patchset from which you
> roll releases (and provide the appropriate support). FreeBSD is not in
> a position to review code to upstream projects.
I'm not sure where you got that idea. Historically it's been pretty
common for there to be a version of something in ports where upstream
development has stalled (or outright died), but an active maintainer
keeps the thing alive with patches. Requiring a maintainer to do what
you're suggesting seems a very high, and altogether unnecessary burden.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE518FB.1000802>