David Evans writes: > On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote: >> Hi all, >> I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship >> for new ports. >> >> I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when >> contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned >> ports. But is it usual to commit new ports as with `nomaintainer` as well, >> or should this be avoided? What to do with ports where the contributor does >> not assume maintainership? >> >> Any thoughts? Thanks! >> ~petr >> >> _ > This is done from time to time but my thoughts are that if you are going > to create a port and submit it you should also be willing to maintain > it. Many other distributions would not accept a port on such a basis or > drop it if no one was willing to maintain it. MacPorts is more permissive. > > Again these are my thoughts as you requested not necessarily a statement > of MacPorts policy.
I've been thinking about this and sometimes I wonder why we even have 'openmaintainer'? I mean, it seems like a huge I/O block because the waiting 72 hours turns into forgetting the ticket for a few weeks. Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a port with their name on it has changed. Also, can we get tickets to be automatically closed when the commit message says "closes #1234?" _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev