On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 16:42 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > For low-volume, easy-to-maintain packages, it's never too late to go get > a comaintainer. Or to give the package away. And I simply don't believe > that 'important package' implies 'lots of work to maintain it'.
I think what you're saying here is quite reasonable. A simple concrete example might help to make this point. Pick a specific package that meets these criteria and go through the thought exercise of when the maintainer is run over by a bus and the package has no co-maintainer. I think the problem is, many of us, like me, do have vivid imaginations and envision "bad things" happening when an "important" package loses its only maintainer because the problem is painted in strokes that are overly broad. Perhaps I was too indirect in my request for anecdotes. I'd like some more specific packages discussed so we can identify where the potential problems lie and focus our energies on those, rather than worrying over all of the corner cases that aren't real problems. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
