python@ as ports maintainer

[Marcus von Appen]

On, Wed Apr 18, 2007, Alexander Botero-Lowry wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I've been seeing a trend lately that I find a bit disturbing and I just wanted
> to lay down the official python@ policy on this issue. The trend I'm referring
> to is the setting of python@ on python consumer ports without first discussing
> it with the python@ list. Early on, perky@ and I decided we didn't want python@
> to be a dumping ground for any python consumer and that we wanted to carefully
> think through the ports that were directly maintained by the group with the out
> look of providing better QA for a small subset of important and critical ports
> related to or used heavily by Python consumers. That being said, we feel that
> if every python consumer in ports is owned by python@ we can not sufficently
> provide support to maintain and keep them up to date. What is good for a small
> number of ports becomes unmanigable at a larger number, just like ports
> maintained by ports@ though more accessible to committers tend to see less
> updates and fixes simply because there are just so many of them.

Is there some list if non-important ports, which you would like to hand
over to some other maintainer so you can focus on the main tasks for
python? If so, I'd be pleased to take over the one or other.

Regards
Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-python/attachments/20070418/2a8e6934/attachment.pgp