On 27 August 2012 10:23, Julian H. Stacey <j...@berklix.com> wrote: > Eitan Adler wrote:
> No, > - eg, If MAINTAINER of hylafax had resigned I would have resumed maintenance. This is unrelated to you being the original contributor. It is you, thankfully, being interested in the port. :) > - Creators of others ports have functioned as fallback if asked. > I guess its not an uncommon phenomena, a creator is happy someone > else maintains code, but doesnt want to see a port unsupported > if maintainer response might slip toward timeout & replacement. It is equally common that the creator left the project and the given address bounces. > & change to eg > "Creator (but see MAINTAINER below):" or just get rid of it, if we are changing things :) >> We should be encouraging >> users to mail po...@freebsd.org and possibly cc the maintainer if >> required. > > Ports is high volume; one can get lost in traffic, > sometimes private mail is better, context dependent. this brings up a completely different bikeshed of splitting ports@ into -users and -devel, but not for now. :) > Alow deletion & update by send-pr You mean like a maintainer? If I understand correctly, you want the idea of multiple maintainers. I am completely for this. It is even trivial to do by adding a comment just below the MAINTAINER line. This is unrelated to maintaining the historical "originator" in the header of the port. > I wasnt aware they were not changeable ?. > I'd assumed it was free text comment, not auto generated ? this is the property which started this discussion. They are currently the historical address used to submit the port. The address is never changed. -- Eitan Adler _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
