On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:43:13PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Requiring co-maintainers may be overkill for some packages, but having > > a dedicated backup who you trust to do updates when you're busy|away > > doesn't hurt, does it? > > /me wonders who would volunteer to be tama backup ^_^" I volunteer tbm. :) > Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly. As do I. Co-maintainers seem like a pretty easy way to specify the backup in the current system so that when someone goes MIA or offline for whatever reason, anyone with the package will know where to direct inquiries. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
pgpJ_lTMqn6WY.pgp
Description: PGP signature