People may be likely to commit to being part of a group, where they can assist as time allows, without necessarily commiting to being THE maintainer for a particular package. So you could potentially end up with a larger pool of people prepared to do maintenance with this model.
Alan On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Vladimír Čunát <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/27/2014 04:35 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote: > >> What do you think? I think something like this is inevitable with the >> ever-growing number of packages and users or we end up with the >> situation like we have today, with thousands of outdated packages >> without maintainers or with inactive/busy maintainers listed. >> > > I think the main problem is that the total amount of energy spent on > maintaining packages is low, and I don't see how the grouping will help it. > > Also, the commitment of being maintainer of a group of packages seems > significantly larger than for a single package. The change may rather > dissuade people from becoming a maintainer at all, as they may be only > interested in a few particular packages and not e.g. in all games we have. > > > Vladimir > > > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
