On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 03:37:46AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > That is indeed a true statement, but I'm unsure what point you're trying > to make in the context of this discussion. > > Care to elaborate?
Sure. The point I am trying to make is that encouraging someone to adopt a package when he cannot make that commitment despite the fact that he cares about it is counterproductive. It is better for that package to stay in the hands of the QA group. Looking at the bazaar package, for example, I see two important differences between the current status and the hypothetical situation if the maintainer field were set to the QA group: 1) If it were orphaned, people would whine about how it is wasting all manner of bits in all manner of files on all manner of media. Since there is a name in the maintainer field, these complaints are magically invalidated. 2) As it stands, a not-insignificant number of people who might want to adopt or NMU it might be reluctant to do so, because it is "maintained". If it is orphaned, that hindrance goes away. So from my perspective, it is better off if it were orphaned. Is that not your perspective? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
