Nico Golde wrote: > Hi Luk, > * Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 18:21]: >> Nico Golde wrote: >>> Hi Mario, >>> * Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 21:33]: > [...] >>> What is the purpose of this? If the package is well >>> maintained I think it's really >>> questionable that an inactive co-maintainer justifies a >>> source upload just because his name is in the control file >>> (like for example in #455011). >> To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers. > > That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of > the package is MIA.
Note that I wrote 'end up'... of course we don't file bugs for packages were all maintainers are already MIA: these packages get orphaned right away... >> If a package is well maintained it's perfectly ok to lower the >> importance of the bug and fix the issue in the next upload... > > I still don't see a reason for a bug. An active maintainer > will notice this and will fix it by himself I guess. > To me this is not very different from filing a bug for an outdated > standards version (e.g. 3.7.2) even if no package changes > are needed. Having packages listing inactive maintainers harms as people try to contact them. I'm not sure an active maintainer is really sure the co-maintainer is MIA and thus probably won't remove them... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
