New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers]

[Frank Mayhar]

Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>     When people see the port is maintained:
> 
>     - they wait for the maintainer to fix/update the port instead of
>       submitting a patch
>     - they communicate directly with the maintainer
>     - they don't bother at all, because the maintainer won't respond
>       anyway (applies to specific maintainers)

Or alternatively, and speaking strictly for myself, send-pr a patch with a 
CC to the maintainer.  If the maintainer never responds, the patch may well 
be committed and in any case it's tracked in the PR database.  Someone 
someday may pick it up and use it if they need it.  If the port is 
unmaintained, of course, I still send-pr the patch and I rarely if ever 
take over the port, simply because I don't have time to maintain more than 
the couple I already have.

Of course, I consider none of this to be some kind of personal affront. 
Things are as they are, some ports are unmaintained and some maintainers 
never respond.  That's just the way it is, but it _doesn't_ mean that 
FreeBSD should start accepting unmaintained ports.  (If that's not what 
you're arguing, fine, but it certainly _seems_ to be, else I don't 
understand where the disagreement comes from).

(Oh, and the "bullshit" I called was with respect to your [Roman] assertion 
that the "policy makers" won and everyone else lost.  That's a gross 
oversimplification and is untrue to boot.  I stand by what I wrote.)
-- 
Frank Mayhar frank at exit.com	http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting                 http://www.gpsclock.com/
                                 http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/