Maintainer away tracking

[Rainer Müller]

Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
>> So, this proposal was out now for about a week and nobody replied.  
>> If you don't like it, please tell me at least why you think it is  
>> not a good idea.
> 
> We already have the 72 hour timeout, the option of putting  
> 'openmaintainer' on our ports or having co-maintainers who can also  
> commit.

Exactly, we have to wait 72h even if the person in question will not 
respond anyway.

> In addition, ports that are seriously broken (ie, don't build,  
> security vulnerability, distfile no longer available) can be fixed to  
> work (without major changes) without waiting for the timeout already.

These points are not exactly clarified in the guide.
   # A critical port is broken that affects many users.
Doesn't sound like 'missing distfile' or 'doesn't build' to me. I can't 
find another section regarding committing without maintainers' 
acknowledgment.

> I don't see the additional speed benefit as worth the extra book  
> keeping.

The extra book keeping is done my each individual maintainer. So not 
much work for a maintainers themself.

> That said, I'm not going to object if others want to use it (I do know  
> that I don't really plan on advertising to the world any time I may be  
> going away on vacation).

Hm, why not? You are not going to be around for any work on MacPorts, so 
tell the project about it. If we know you are just away for a few days, 
someone could also hold on committing not-so-important tickets until the 
known date at which you are back.

Rainer