'temporary' package

[Michael Alan Dorman]

I will observe that over the years, the Debian project has gradually
evolved toward shared, or even group, maintainership for important
packages---for the same reason: someone fafiates and the whole ecosystem
starts piling up behind an important package whose maintainer is
unresponsive.

Mike.

Niklas Hambüchen <mail at nh2.me> writes:

> It's also worth mentioning that Hackage 2 has a nice "multiple
> maintainers" functionality, see for example this:
>
>    http://hackage.haskell.org/package/tasty/maintainers/
>
> It's not a very visible feature though, the package page doesn't like it
> and it's not visible how many maintainers a package has (where having
> more than one could be a good quality metric that maybe should be
> advertised).
>
> How about automatically bothering single maintainers with a "do you not
> want to add another maintainer on Hackage" email once they exceed some
> popularity threshold?
>
> As an example, the "6289 downloads in last 30 days" would make a nice
> popularity indicator.
>
> On 09/05/14 18:05, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
>> On 09/05/14 16:14, Carter Schonwald wrote:
>>> You do raise a good point, should taking over maintainership of a
>>> library adhere to PVP expectations? 
>> 
>> I don't think so - taking over maintainership should be a last resort in
>> my opinion.
>> 
>> Having backup maintainers becoming common seems a better solution.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries