Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:53:36 -0600 From: Steve Price <steve@havk.org> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/japanese/skkfep Makefile Message-ID: <20010322155336.U97160@bsd.havk.org> In-Reply-To: <200103222138.PAA04691@windsor.research.att.com>; from fenner@research.att.com on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:38:47PM -0600 References: <200103212026.f2LKQ2d15684@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010321180600.N469@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <200103220627.AAA12181@windsor.research.att.com> <20010322004125.U43429@bsd.havk.org> <200103222138.PAA04691@windsor.research.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:38:47PM -0600, Bill Fenner wrote:
>
> All the more reason for it to get a MAINTAINER?...
I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. IMHO
it is better to have this line than to not have it.
MAINTAINER= ports@FreeBSD.org
It has the defacto MAINTAINER - the ports mailing list. This
is a big clue bat to anyone that wants to step and become the
new MAINTAINER that nobody else is currently taking care of it.
The way it is now people could legitimately asked whether there
is a MAINTAINER for this port or not. Some might even do what
others do to src and pick the last person that touched the file.
Leading to questions like: Is fenner@freebsd.org the MAINTAINER
of this port and he just forgot to add a MAINTAINER line?
Being explicit is a Good Thing (tm) IMHO.
-steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010322155336.U97160>