From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 7 18:46:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B932116A4CE; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:46:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from comrie.uwaterloo.ca (comrie.math.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.216.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6180C43FA3; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:46:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mpatters@cs.uwaterloo.ca) Received: from cs.uwaterloo.ca (comrie [129.97.216.108]) by comrie.uwaterloo.ca (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB82kPkc004496; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:46:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mpatters@cs.uwaterloo.ca) Message-ID: <3FD3E605.5040306@cs.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:46:29 -0500 From: Mike Patterson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pav@FreeBSD.org References: <5.0.2.1.1.20031207171127.02d4f708@popserver.sfu.ca> <1070833971.78821.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> <3FD3C69A.3090501@cs.uwaterloo.ca> <1070843957.78821.13.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <1070843957.78821.13.camel@hood.oook.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: port maintainers not in contrib.additional.sgml X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:46:39 -0000 Pav Lucistnik wrote: > V po, 08. 12. 2003 v 01:32, Mike Patterson píše: >>Not that it really matters to me, but if somebody contributes a port and >>then drops it, and somebody else takes it over, why should that somebody >>else not get credit for that, if credit is to be assigned? Maintaining >>is just as important as the original submission, no? > > > I misunderstood your point. I was under impression you only want to > complete the list by adding missing entries under current "rules" [1]. Well, it wasn't my point, I was just responding to your response to somebody else. :-) > If you're about to add all authors *and* maintainers than it's > completely different question. I don't see why that should not be done, and that's what I thought was being discussed, although I could be wrong - it's been known to happen. :) Mike