| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:45:06 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> It |
| 5 |
> just seems silly, and it might actually reduce the incentive for |
| 6 |
> somebody else to step up and actually maintain it because it doesn't |
| 7 |
> go on list of maintainer-needed packages. In this way the rush to |
| 8 |
> treeclean stuff that works actually results in stuff that is LESS |
| 9 |
> maintained but still in the tree. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
So in that regard, any thoughts on a compromise? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I figured something like |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
<maintainer type="person">...</maintainer> |
| 18 |
<maintainer type="project"> |
| 19 |
<email>openseason@g.o</email> |
| 20 |
<name>Open Season For Maintainence</name> |
| 21 |
</maintainer> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Where its like "maintainer needed" except with a defacto maintainer. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That is, it shares the property of maintainer needed that anybody at all |
| 27 |
can maintain it informally "just to keep it working". |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The idea being to communicate "hey, I'm still using this, and |
| 30 |
will work on it when I have time, but I don't want to stand in the way |
| 31 |
of somebody else making it be more useful, just do whatever with it |
| 32 |
and if I really don't like that, I'll remove openseason" |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
But of course, I do agree that "maintainer needed" should not imply |
| 36 |
"free to clean". |
Archives