Re: Making better use of multiple maintainers
* Marcelo E. Magallon <firstname.lastname@example.org> [20010902 21:26]:
> * wmaker. It's not a complex package, but it operates under
> * celestia. Simple. Very limited scope. Not many configuration
> Would I like to find a co-maintainer for wmaker? Yes. Celestia?
> No. My criteria for considering co-maintainership is simple: "Can I
> cover all the possible ways of using this package myself?"
I agree with you that it is more important in the case of wmaker where
more than one developer can work on the package without much
communication. However, I'm not sure I agree that a backup is totally
useless in the case of celestia. What happens if you're on vacation,
woody is released tomorrow and a RC bug is filed on celestia today and
noone cares to upload a fixed package? Similarly, if you were really
busy for a while, your backup could do uploads so the users don't have
to wait for bug fixes too long.
What I'm trying to say is that a backup makes sense in virtually all
cases, even in the case of smaller packages. Bigger packages certainly
benefit to a higher degree, but I think it makes sense for smaller