| 1 |
On 03/10/10 15:41, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't even think the maintainer-needed ones should be bumped. Who |
| 3 |
> knows what bugs you are introducing into the tree. This is why things |
| 4 |
> eventually get treecleaned. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I purposely wrote "no big deal _to their maintainers_" - I wonder why |
| 7 |
everyone is so scare about their packages getting touched now :-) |
| 8 |
The requirements for touching packages shall be as on any other day. For |
| 9 |
maintainer-needed I wouldn't make such a strong cut, though. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> As Mike said, for ones with maintainers, don't touch them unless you |
| 13 |
> have explicit permission. We have maintainers for a reason, and if you |
| 14 |
> don't know the intricacies of the package, you shouldn't be touching it. |
| 15 |
> You should know how it works, how to test it, and what the normal |
| 16 |
> problems of a bump are. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Right. As you say it this way: we have maintainers for another reason |
| 19 |
too: so someone keeps the package up to date. It's both a right and a duty. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> With that being said, I don't really see the point of a bumpday. These |
| 23 |
> day ideas are ignoring the fact that we don't have enough active developers, |
| 24 |
> which is the real problem. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I assume that many half-active developers would be more active if they |
| 27 |
were motivated stronger. Bumpday could be another step to reactivate |
| 28 |
existing developers. But yes, we need more developers. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Sebastian |
Archives