On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
So, this proposal was out now for about a week and nobody replied. If you don't like it, please tell me at least why you think it is not a good idea.
We already have the 72 hour timeout, the option of putting 'openmaintainer' on our ports or having co-maintainers who can also commit.
In addition, ports that are seriously broken (ie, don't build, security vulnerability, distfile no longer available) can be fixed to work (without major changes) without waiting for the timeout already.
I don't see the additional speed benefit as worth the extra book keeping.
That said, I'm not going to object if others want to use it (I do know that I don't really plan on advertising to the world any time I may be going away on vacation).
-- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
