More classes of maintainer (was: Re: branch master updated: nmap: fixes for 32-bit and pre-C++11 platforms)

[chrischavez at gmx.us]

On 11/1/23 at 9:02 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:

> I think if we add a separate "interested party" role, it would
> probably be good to change the abandonment procedure so that instead
> of removing unresponsive maintainers entirely, they'd just get moved
> to the "interested party" role instead. Sometimes reporting bugs
> against nomaintainer ports can be pretty frustrating since no one
> notices them since there's no one to cc, but with a separate
> "interested party" field there could still be someone to cc. I guess
> another way of thinking of it is separate maintainers for issues vs.
> PRs? That is, "this person can help solve bugs with this port" vs.
> "this person can make changes to this port" or something.


I have been interested in something similar. There are ports for which I would like to be notified of changes or issues, but I am not interested in being responsible for maintaining.
https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2023-March/044956.html