| 1 |
El lun, 19-03-2012 a las 10:56 -0500, Paul Varner escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 03/18/12 13:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Due his retirement the following packages need a new maintainer: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > app-portage/maintainer-helper |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Thanks for taking them |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I've added app-portage/maintainer-helper to the tools-portage herd, |
| 11 |
> however, I've left it as maintainer-needed. So if anyone wants to take |
| 12 |
> it, feel free. The tools-portage herd will fix bugs for it as we find |
| 13 |
> the time. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Regards, |
| 16 |
> Paul |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I disagree with leaving maintainer-needed as default assign, if you will |
| 19 |
fix bugs when you have time it's better than what I will do with |
| 20 |
maintainer-needed packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Also, I think most of maintainers would like to have help with a lot of |
| 23 |
packages, but that is not enough reason to change their metadatas to get |
| 24 |
bugs assigned to maintainer-needed and us CCed |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Have you seen any case when "if anyone wants to take it" he is not able |
| 27 |
to because the package is "owned" by a herd? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you want to promote that package be taken by other as soon as |
| 30 |
possible, add a note to metadata telling that (I have seen it in some |
| 31 |
cases) |
Archives