[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: enforce co-maintainers (was: Re: next FESCo meeting agenda.)



On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> seth vidal schrieb:
> >>> You also have the problem of folks being on holiday. It's not unusual in
> >>> the UK for people to vanish for 2 - 3 weeks.
> >> So what? While on vacation, one of your packages may need the attention.
> >> It's best to have co-maintainers.
> > +1 for co-maintainers.
> 
> Well, should we try to enforce co-maintainers in the longer term? E.g. a
> rule "each package must have at least one primary maintainer and one
> co-maintainer"?
> 

That'll just make the barrier to addition higher.

I'd say we don't mandate it but make sure all the bits are there for it
to be encouraged :)

-sv



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]