Mark Brown wrote: >>I suspect that a co-maintainer would have been bored dead for that >>package. Requiring a co-maintainer for each package would almost >>certainly be more work than benefit for a number of such very simple > There'd also be a serious risk that a co-maintainer would go MIA for > lack of anything much to do :) . Some specially skilled people would be allowed to co-maintain two packages or keep their day jobs. Maybe this would reduce the need to have two phantastillion "script that replaces two nested bash for loops for people needing to maintain their open proxies without keyboards" packages. Cheers Thomas
Attachment:
pgpmefXCY6hv9.pgp
Description: PGP signature