Simone Rota [2006-12-04 18:43]: Hi, sorry for not responding earlier.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:15:33PM +0100, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
- Use "CRUX System Team, core-ports at crux dot nu" for the core ports maintainer field - Use the specific maintainer for core ports that the System Team members are not much interested in due to personal preferences, if any (I'm thinking of ports like xfsprogs)
Okay, but what about e.g. core/bzip2? I adopted it some months ago; are you suggesting to make it owned by "core system team" again?
Yes; I thought one of the main tasks of the ST was to be in charge for the core ports, where some additional consistency is needed. The exception above was to offer better support for ports which cannot be reliably tested by the ST (ie if nobody uses xfs) or require some specific knowledge / actual usage (ie exim)
I wasn't aware of that (didn't we want to define the group's responsibilities and stuff some time?). IMO it's nicer to have a specific maintainer for a port, and use the "ST group" as a fallback if noone cares about a specific port enough to put his name on it. But it's not that I cannot be convinced that your scheme is superior. Maybe it needs some voting though ;) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?