On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/30/2011 08:29, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > Might that not interfere with the process of getting a new maintainer for > > a popular port when its previous maintainer has been lax (or hit by a > > bus)? > > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing the connection. Can you > elaborate?
I'll put it another way: Wouldn't it be easier for a new maintainer to pick up maintenance of a port if (s)he doesn't have to start over from scratch? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpFstKgGCRTW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
