* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010902 21:26]: > * wmaker. It's not a complex package, but it operates under > several > > * celestia. Simple. Very limited scope. Not many configuration > options. > > Would I like to find a co-maintainer for wmaker? Yes. Celestia? > No. My criteria for considering co-maintainership is simple: "Can I > cover all the possible ways of using this package myself?"
I agree with you that it is more important in the case of wmaker where more than one developer can work on the package without much communication. However, I'm not sure I agree that a backup is totally useless in the case of celestia. What happens if you're on vacation, woody is released tomorrow and a RC bug is filed on celestia today and noone cares to upload a fixed package? Similarly, if you were really busy for a while, your backup could do uploads so the users don't have to wait for bug fixes too long. What I'm trying to say is that a backup makes sense in virtually all cases, even in the case of smaller packages. Bigger packages certainly benefit to a higher degree, but I think it makes sense for smaller packages, too. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
