On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:35:38 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> > > On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:18:13 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > > > [...] It seems better to name it after the > > > target of the process, what they become - a Developer. > > > > The Maintainer mentioned in a package control field is a Package > > Maintainer. > > > > I fail to see why details about maintaining _packages_ should make > > us avoid the same term for other maintainance tasks. > > Of your last 20 recorded uses of the word "Maintainer" on > debian lists before this thread that I found, you use it once > in another meaning (webmaster) and that was uncapitalised. Which makes "Maintainer" unsuitble for translation maintainers how, exactly? > What are the contributors doing if not helping to maintain > the package, in your opinion? I do not talk about "contributors", but several different kinds of "maintainers". What eg. Translation Maintainers are doing besides helping maintain some package is maintaining _consistency_ across packages, and across pseudo-packages like our website. > In the debian context, I think Maintainer is commonly > understood as a package maintainer. We have a less confusing > word for a developer ("Developer"), so why not use it? They are both fine words. Why _avoid_ one of them for some uses, only due to them being less common? > Hope that helps you see, Sorry, it didn't. Possibly you are not to blame for that. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
Attachment:
pgpuuHPcpCzV3.pgp
Description: PGP signature