Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 02:07:44 +0000 From: Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@freebsd.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: perl@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Unmaintained perl ports Message-ID: <20150505020744.GA15524@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <EA129229-7012-4367-A026-9908981E01CA@adamw.org> References: <EA129229-7012-4367-A026-9908981E01CA@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 09:21:54AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > I was thinking about assigning those modules to perl@. What do you think of > that idea? Do you mean ports@? If so, I think that makes sense since someone is more likely do adopt a port if the maintainer is set to ports@. When I see a module set to perl@ it makes me think that it is actively maintained by the perl team --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVSCXrAAoJEPUoFYRZ1x7npV0IAIxyUVUQ2xhyLgdFFIyERT0K BmVZbixXhLS6tC8l7JSIxIfl5BuLNvZhIGr/B862agmDVX9PiZn6dahomPDS522f i0sS8QB040zfKgIQxLVWZUI7BRDQYC5QMgFystAl8HHYrJysYbcnf3ymj6cly9mV tG/5Iu3L2UVyvFBHckmuVlj5lkY6zy6nR8Ws3HVe0i7BpwyVgs60g0yU+z9yWctc 9s3T4szffammp3pLRmvybxM60pC3hubV/V1jHjt1a6zwosGtBtJeidrOo3TRX5nR pynfQYaealZ6Z0Ecbku3hZQlqid5354Gf1cNZ5+5tZ0esukwyRjPOwZlW6cpnXs= =hHXX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150505020744.GA15524>