On 04/11/13 17:25, "Koehne Kai" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Richard Moore >> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:32 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Development] Maintainership of QtNetwork >> >> Hi All, >> >> As some of you may know, Shane has a new job and therefore has a lot >>less >> time to spend on QtNetwork. He, Peter and I have discussed how we should >> maintain the module in the future. What we're proposing is that Peter >>and I >> take over as joint maintainers since neither of us has the time to keep >>on top >> of things alone. Anyone looking to help out in this area should feel >>free to >> drop us a mail. > >This isn't a veto or anything, but having two 'equal' maintainers for the >same area sounds odd to me. I mean, it's perfectly fine that you split up >the workload, but the point of having a nominal maintainer is to have >_one_ person to go to, and _one_ person who can decide if there's need >... It doesn't mean that the maintainer can't delegate his work though, >up to the point that whomever he trusts can act as a de-facto decision >maker, too. > >Anyway, it's of course great that you two stepped up ;) Also thanks to >Shane for taking responsibility for this important module so far. Also a big thank you Shane from my side. I¹m also happy that Peter and Rich are stepping up to take over the maintainership. A shared maintainership is something we didn¹t have before, but I¹m happy to try it out. IMO it¹ll work fine, as long as Peter and Rich agree between themselves. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
