Lost maintainers

Thomas-Martin Seck tmseck-lists at netcologne.de
Fri Jan 2 05:54:04 PST 2004

* Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at leidinger.net> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]:

> On 2 Jan 2004 06:16:07 -0000
> tmseck-lists at netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) wrote:
[dealing with "lost" maintainers]

>> This is a portmgr@ decision which should be written down somewhere.
>> Especially when it comes to the definition of "long time".
> I think this is a "common sense applies" decision. A formal definition
> of "long time" would be nice, yes, but so far we (the committers)
> typically get it right (read: not too long) when we get bugged enough
> (just add a note how long you already try to contact the unresponsive
> maintainer).

Well, I think it has never been a problem to find a committer to do some
intermediate updates when the maintainer does not submit them
himself. The problem with www/squid is that the maintainer has a commit
bit and I had the feeling that committers are a bit reluctant to mess
with their "colleague"'s work when I tried to get my squid updates
committed during the last year. And I am a bit formal because of
Adrian's commit bit.

>> FWIW, I'd like to take the maintainership of www/squid.
> Which email address do you want to use (current maintainer CCed)?

It would be <tmseck at netcologne.de>.

>> > We can give them back the maintainership if they will back.
>> I would not like if someone came back and took the port I just got used
>> to maintain.
> I agree... as long as the old maintainer isn't better suited to do it
> (e.g. author of the program). I think this can get resolved in a way
> which is ok for both if such an issue shows up.

Adrian has a much deeper understanding of squid than I will ever get, I
guess. It's a pity that he is so unresponsive.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list