Maintainership of py-zopetesting and py-zopeevent

[Ruslan Mahmatkhanov]

Doug Barton wrote on 06.09.2011 11:24:
> On 09/06/2011 00:19, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>> we already have plenty of portnames with dot in them
>
> That's not a good reason to add more.
>
> I did read the rest of your post, and while I sympathize with your
> arguments, I'm not convinced by them. The good news for you however is
> that I'm not in charge of anything. :)
>
>
> Doug

Ok, assume, you are developer :). And you ship some app on your website 
(we name it "portmaster"). And you implement plugin framework for it, 
and release the first plugin that you name
"portmaster-plugin.do-the-best" (i know it's rather stupid name, but 
it's an example), that will allow to user successfully build any port 
(even if it broken on that user's arch, and even if it not exists yet) 
without any problems. And you just announce it on the offsite: "Please 
install that portmaster-plugin.do-the-best and you will forget about all 
the problems you expected earlier days". And there is some kind soul 
that added it to ports tree with name "portmaster-plug-in_dothebest", 
since he decide that it's better than original name and some unnecessary 
dots and spaces is avoided too. User just can't find it in the tree and 
will continue crying on the ports@ that FreeBSD ports is such 
unprofessional and unconvinient :)

-- 
Regards,
Ruslan

Tinderboxing kills... the drives.