At 06:42 PM 7/17/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
This is an unreasonable position. You are adopting the position that only the persons that you know do not have time to maintain it should be allowed to do so,
You seem to be confused. I'm only talking about the setuptools *primary maintainer* role. If said primary maintainer wants to have a more open patch policy, that'd be their business. (Heck, I'd grant the role to a *team* of qualified volunteers, if it cut down the load for said volunteers.)
I've also laid out criteria -- both in the email you're replying to, and in the past -- for what would make me consider someone for the role of a primary maintainer.
That nobody has stepped forward doesn't make me unreasonable, it means there's a lack of qualified and interested volunteers for that position.
I'm not saying that nobody but Jim and Ian and Philip contribute good patches; maybe half the patches I get are basically good. But *reviewing* those patches, rejecting the ones that should be rejected, and hardest of all, coming up with good ways to actually move the codebase forward, are the tasks that need more-qualified (by my previously-stated definition) volunteers.
That has put us through a lot of unnecessary pain, just because you are not willing to let go of something you no longer are willing to maintain.
Who said I'm not willing to maintain it? All I said is that it's not very high on my priorities for *unpaid* programming projects. That means that stuff tends to get fixed only when it interferes with me personally getting something done.
Setuptools is dead,
Nope, is's only resting. ;-) At some point it'll move again.
you are not interested in maintaining it,
Which should not be confused with me not having an *interest* in maintaining it. (Which is why the name only goes to a qualified replacement figurehead.)
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
