On 03/10/10 15:41, Mark Loeser wrote:
> I don't even think the maintainer-needed ones should be bumped.  Who
> knows what bugs you are introducing into the tree.  This is why things
> eventually get treecleaned.

I purposely wrote "no big deal _to their maintainers_" - I wonder why
everyone is so scare about their packages getting touched now :-)
The requirements for touching packages shall be as on any other day. For
maintainer-needed I wouldn't make such a strong cut, though.

> As Mike said, for ones with maintainers, don't touch them unless you
> have explicit permission.  We have maintainers for a reason, and if you
> don't know the intricacies of the package, you shouldn't be touching it.
> You should know how it works, how to test it, and what the normal
> problems of a bump are.

Right.  As you say it this way: we have maintainers for another reason
too: so someone keeps the package up to date.  It's both a right and a duty.

> With that being said, I don't really see the point of a bumpday.  These
> day ideas are ignoring the fact that we don't have enough active developers,
> which is the real problem.

I assume that many half-active developers would be more active if they
were motivated stronger.  Bumpday could be another step to reactivate
existing developers.  But yes, we need more developers.


Reply via email to