Re: Controlling what's in the archive (Re: MIA, Incompetent and holiday-loving maintainers)
Thus spoke Thomas Viehmann <email@example.com> on 2004-01-04 21:52:47:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Another important problem is that orphaning a package isn't really a
> > panacea either. You'd be surprised how many packages which were
> > orphaned because the maintainer is inactive are still orphaned 3
> > months later (and are then often removed). We also have to think of
> > better defining and controlling what should enter the archive.
> Maybe requirering co-maintainers would be an idea (or a second from a
> current developer for ITPs). Sponsorship does some of that, but isn't a
> perfect solution.
Requiring co-maintainers would be an overkill. There are quite a few
packages where it would be a big burden and wouldn't accomplish anything
(think most of my packages: tama, sam, now es). Some packages are so
small and simple that requiring co-maintainers for them is just a PITA.
You could fine tune that so only "bigger" or "more complex" packages
would need comaints, but you'd have a hard way of defining what exactly
is bigger or more complex.
It is just enough to recommend co-maintainers, and spread the word that
it is a good thing.