On 02/07/05 10:43 Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Given that an activation measurement is rather easy to add (be it in the original sync script or externally), I wouldn't try to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet. I believe that an "update requirement" would mean that only those who want to dedicate a good amount of time will join this project ("uh, I have to guarantee fixed update cycles to join? I don't know..."); the net effect of this is the opposite of what we wanted originally: instead of creating a big collection where to look for ports, we'd add another layer (base/opt, contrib, httpups) and would end up with the very same situation we have now.
Generally speaking, I'd like to see a well-working contrib repository, which encourages collaboration between maintainers ("I'm dropping portX, does anybody want to take care of it?"). I agree that could discurage occasional contributors. After all, people aiming at providing a "more maintained" collection could simply join CLC, so your view of a less strict policy for the new contrib is fine with me as well.
But before we continue, I guess we should come to some agreement what we actually want ('we' being more than just the three of us, hopefully). Should we schedule an irc meeting to discuss that?
It's OK with me, the ML provides a more flexible way (less time constraints), but IRC is probably quicker. Regards, Simone -- Simone Rota WEB : http://www.varlock.com Bergamo, Italy MAIL: sip@varlock.com