| 1 |
Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security |
| 4 |
>> issues either. This means that you should have devaway on. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and |
| 7 |
> the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that |
| 8 |
> he can't be relied upon with security fixes. However, there is no need |
| 9 |
> to do periodic commits now, so the above theorem doesn't hold. :) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain |
| 13 |
packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the |
| 14 |
maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep |
| 15 |
claiming packages only to allow them to bitrot can be booted. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
However, unless a dev is actually a liability, does it make sense to get |
| 18 |
rid of them? Even a small positive contribution is still a positive |
| 19 |
contribution. If the concern is devs who become liabilities then why |
| 20 |
not make the policy to look for the liabilities themselves? |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives