Daniel J. Luke wrote:
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.
Exactly, we have to wait 72h even if the person in question will not
respond anyway.
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.
These points are not exactly clarified in the guide.
# A critical port is broken that affects many users.
Doesn't sound like 'missing distfile' or 'doesn't build' to me. I can't
find another section regarding committing without maintainers'
acknowledgment.
I don't see the additional speed benefit as worth the extra book
keeping.
The extra book keeping is done my each individual maintainer. So not
much work for a maintainers themself.
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).
Hm, why not? You are not going to be around for any work on MacPorts, so
tell the project about it. If we know you are just away for a few days,
someone could also hold on committing not-so-important tickets until the
known date at which you are back.
Rainer
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
