| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:30 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." |
| 2 |
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 3. I think what's important is to keep packages maintained. I consider |
| 4 |
> maintainership to be a duty, not a privilege. If someone is listed in |
| 5 |
> metadata.xml, but is not really maintaining the package, that creates a |
| 6 |
> formal illusion that the package is maintained, and may prevent other |
| 7 |
> people from stepping up and taking maintenance of that package. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 4. I suggest that we focus on the above: keeping packages maintained. |
| 10 |
> Taking packages out of hands of inactive/overworked maintainers is good. |
| 11 |
> They can always become _more_ active, which is easier if they retain cvs |
| 12 |
> access. If they make a single commit every 3-6 months, I'm fine with |
| 13 |
> that as long as things are maintained properly. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
+1000. The point is not to retire developers. To point is to make sure |
| 16 |
we have a clear picture of what packages are (somewhat actively) being |
| 17 |
maintained. Perhaps the undertakers project (or some other project) |
| 18 |
should focus more on package maintenance history than activity |
| 19 |
history. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Cheers, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Dirkjan |
Archives