Removing documentation

[John Marino]

On 2/8/2016 1:47 AM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
> 
> It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent
> maintainer for something that has not actually happened.

I've seen it happen several times.  I'm not accusing Torsten of thinking
this way.  I am saying I want any proposed maintainer to prove they can
maintain it.  By that I mean: fix it first.  Fixes can come from anyone,
they don't have to have the title of maintainer.


>> I think the maintainer must have an expert level knowledge of the ports
>> true and there are probably not that many people that can actually
>> maintain this script.
> 
> That would explain the lack of maintainers.  Well, that, and it's
> written in sh, the Not-A-Programming-Language That Time Forgot(TM).

Wasn't this presented as a "pro" in the preceding post? :)


> Have similar requirements been set for maintainers of any other port?

Irrelevant/non-comparable if the other ports are not documented in the
handbook.

> In the past, calls for maintainers have gone out when important ports
> needed them.  I don't recall that happening for portmaster, at least not
> up to now.

The situation has been well known (especially to anyone that filed a PR)
but it should be pretty clear now.

John