Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
- From: Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:00:16 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120601000016.GA6548@falafel.plessy.net>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <4FC51A32.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120531155247.GE9867@jones.dk> <20120531163116.GA21389@gwolf.org> <email@example.com>
Le Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:47:07AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli a écrit :
> > Jonas, I think we all agree that the Maintainer should Maintain
> > whatever he signed up to. Non-Debian people have the right to maintain
> > packages through a sponsor, and they are encouraged to. And they are
> > encouraged to look for a different sponsor if their current one stops
> > being responsive, and all that.
> > However, we cannot expect them to remain active and interested
> > forever.
> But you can safely assume that a DD will remain interested in debian forever?
> Aren't DD common human beings after all? (seems somebody would disagree)
Raphaël has interesting propositions somewhat related to matter in DEP-2.
In particular, I think that we would benefit of a way to better describe the
maintainer's involvement and expectations, as it would help to chose the best
action to take when he does not give signs of activity in Debian for a long
time and becomes unreachable without having managed to drop a message about
this (which I think is an important thing to do when possible).
There was some discussion about this DEP in january on firstname.lastname@example.org. I do
not remember if it was discussed there, but I think that having expiration
dates to the statements (like “I packaged it because I use it daily”) would
help keeping the information accurate.
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan