Am 14.08.2011 05:00, schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 09:20:40PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: >> * Matthias Andree (mand...@freebsd.org) wrote: >>> Possibly we should always mark ports for removal for three months after >>> the point in time when the maintainer gets reset to ports@. >> >> Nice. Well that'll only result in two processes: more and more ports >> will have maintainers reset and then removed, and remaining maintainers >> will take more and more ports beyond their ability to maintain them, >> both will lead to collapse. Is this also not undesirable? > > Big +1 for Dmitry here; ports@ is perfectly fine maintainer entity, much > easier to work with, and often receives more and better care than many of > seemingly "properly" maintained ports.
Assuming that were true, how else do we make sure not to let rotten code linger in the ports tree? _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
