On 21-Dec-05, 13:10 (CST), Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How much would this rule "hurt" those lone ranger maintainers you are
> talking about, the ones who package everything perfectly and cannot
> possibly do any better?
>
> It turns out that there is no need for them to be hurt at all. Lone
> can carry on working as before and find a co-maintainer who won't get
> in his way.
Or, the Lone Ranger can say "screw this crap" and orphan all her
packages.
> In other words, this rule can have only positive effects. :)
That doesn't sound too positive to me.
If you think it's acceptable, under the "must have a co-maintainer"
rule, to have a co-maintainer who doesn't actually do anything except
have their name in the control file, it's pretty clear that the rule is
pure bureaucracy.
Yes, there are some maintainers and/or some packages for which
co-maintenance is a good idea. Luckily, they seem to be figuring it out
on their own. If you have some particular packages in mind, go offer to
help.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
