Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:43:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Absentee maintainership Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.56.0308110932300.51329@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <20030810011011.N83831@blues.jpj.net> References: <200308100049.h7A0nKU1069195@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030810011011.N83831@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Trevor Johnson wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> I'd like to hear your justification of why you think this is an >> appropriate standard of maintainership and why you think you should be >> allowed to continue to "maintain" ports in this way. > The situation is very similar with the qt145 port. I'd like to see you > tend to your own responsibilities rather than what appears to be a > campaign against me. This is irrelevant. Even if there were a problem with qt145, this is no justification for keeping a tight lock, but neglecting other ports. That said, it would be good could you could have a look at http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/49056 which has been stale for five/three months and has been marked broken on -CURRENT for three months. http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?responsible=trevor lists a couple of PRs with patches related to this problem alone. :-( Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.56.0308110932300.51329>