Removing documentation

[Warren Block]

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:

>>> 1.  Remove all mention of portmaster.  That's what this PR recommends.
>>> 2.  Do nothing.
>>> 3.  Update the documentation to indicate the current status,
>>>      recommending alternatives if possible.
>>
>> Number 4 is missing: find a maintainer for it.
>>
>> I would volunteer for this. But before a real commitment i need a closer
>> look at it, which i will do next week. So please standby.
>
> This is not just any port.
> Anybody proposing to be maintainer, in my opinion, should first be
> required to take over every open PR in bugzilla, then fix all the known
> issues there (and elsewhere) and only then be assigned maintainership
> because at that point they've proven they can do the job.
>
> What I do not what to see is somebody putting their name in the
> MAINTAINER field just to keep it from being deprecated, etc, when that
> someone is either unqualified or has no intention of fixing the issues
> or both.

It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent 
maintainer for something that has not actually happened.

> 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).

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

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.