What "openmaintainer" means

[Perry E. Metzger]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:33:28 -0500 Ryan Schmidt
<ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> I would consider many of those things to be changes that I would
> make even if the port is not openmaintainer. For example, if I
> update icu to a new library version, it is my responsibility to
> revbump all ports linking with icu, regardless of openmaintainer.
> 
> I set openmaintainer in my ports when I don't mind others doing
> minor changes, including minor updates. This presumes of course
> that the changes are done correctly.

So maybe the solution really is to let people set finer grained
policies in Portfile comments or by similar means.

In some cases (like for critical infrastructure ports) we might
want to set a wait time of more than 72 hours for the closed port
case -- Ken suggested we wait longer on one thing recently.

For other things, it might be nice to allow people to say "I'm
happy with whatever you do as long as you test your changes".

Allowing people to just set a different policy in their Portfile
comments may be the only practical way to go here.

That said, under the current system, I think Joshua really means for
his ports to be closed, and probably should set them that way.

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		pmetzger at macports.org