Changing port maintainership rules (was: Re: [70103] trunk/dports/lang/parrot/Portfile)

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Eric Hall wrote:
> 	I think keeping the (no)openmaintainer bits we have now
> is the right approach.  For example, for ports that have wide-spread
> impact (like autoconf as mentioned above), we don't want anyone to
> just go "ooh, look, new version, let's commit that" - those that 
> maintain the port and/or understand what it does may well be
> holding back on doing an update for good reasons, and that
> needs to be respected.

I agree that what we have is OK.

A maintainer can choose to let anyone update the port (openmaintainer), anyone can update a nomaintainer port.

Ports without openmaintainer can be immediately updated by anyone if they are broken (with the update being a minimal one to fix the brokenness).

Otherwise, an individual update can be committed with maintainer timeout if the maintainer doesn't respond within 72 hours of the ticket being opened (and the maintainer can be removed in 3 weeks via the port abandonment procedure).

--
Daniel J. Luke                                                                   
+========================================================+                        
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |                          
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |                          
+========================================================+                        
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                          
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                          
+========================================================+