Trevor Harmon wrote: > But regardless of what I think, Fink's policy should be followed, good > or bad. On the other hand, it's difficult to follow a policy that isn't > written down somewhere. That's probably why you're having the problems > you spoke of. Most people have the best intentions -- they don't mean to > ignore your role as maintainer -- they just don't know what the real > protocol is. It needs to be clearly stated somewhere.
Yeah, fink's maintainership policy has always been kind of, just, understood among the admins. This would be a great thing to put up on the wiki. Guess we'll need to figure out what the policy *is*. :) As far as maintainership being in perpetuity, it makes sense to me because generally the maintainer, in the course of packaging something, is most likely to understand issues in new releases of the software, is most likely to be able to get upstream to listen when patches are required, etc. They become the "subject matter expert" in business terms, through the act of packaging it in the first place. It makes sense to, by default, defer to the person who understands that software well enough to package it, when questions arise. -- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick http://ranger.befunk.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
