Benjamin R. Haskell <v...@benizi.com> wrote: [...] > On Sat, 12 May 2012, Thilo Six wrote: [...] >> That is exactlx what i think about the current practice, too. Really i >> think instead of that single-point-of-failure modell of maintenance we >> should move the a team maintenance of runtimefiles. Unless that changes it >> is nearly impossible to get archive wide features/policies applied. > > > I concur completely that a team of runtime file maintainers sounds better.
Yes, a team of runtime file maintainers sounds good to me, at least for files that have not been touched by the maintainer in the last x years. Some statistics: I've contacted the maintainers of 15 syntax files this weekend to add spelling checker support. The stats so far are: - 4 responses received from maintainers of awk, forth, ocaml, scheme (thanks!); - 6 emails without response so far (but it's fair to wait a bit more); - 5 emails bounced for syntax files: bc, mmix, xpm2, expect, vhdl. I'll send the proposed patch to Bram after I wait a bit further. Regards -- Dominique -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
