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. Sebastian