svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:52:18PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> Well, one good reason would be if the port is not staged.  I got the
> idea that you expect random committers to stage the remaining ports,
> maintained or not.

I don't see a problem with random committers staging the remaining ports.
It would be nicer if maintainers would do that themselves, of course.
But I don't see how's this relevant here: all ports will end up staged
sooner or later, by maintainers or not.

> I think it's perfectly legitimate to look at an unmaintained port that
> needs staging and say, "You know what?  it's not worth it, nobody cares
> about it, just set it to deprecate and kill it.  Why should *I* care
> about this port if nobody else in 12 years has cared about it.

I think it makes more sense to first try to stage it; most likely it will
be simple enough.  If it's not, you're in your right to deprecate it.

> Since most of your argument is about how these ports are useful to you,
> I'd recommend that you review the "deprecated" post on a month basis and
> claim the deprecated ports that you care about.

Yes, it's one of the items on my TODO list: unbreak and undeprecate, but
I probably won't claim maintainership for reasons I've given before.

./danfe