".... please it's polite not to take
things over without making at least
some attempt to contact the original
author, EVEN IF YOU DON'T FEEL THAT
THEY ARE VERY ACTIVE. ... "
The thing between Andrea and Michael does bring out this question :
Just what is "POLITE" and what is not?!
I am not siding with either Andrea or Michael on this matter, but my thinking is
that if someone wants to maintain something, someone at least _ought_ to be
active to do the job, or at least be known to still be _ALIVE_ and still willing
to carry on that function. Else he or she should reliquish their "maintainer"
status.
It is utmostly ridiculous to force people in doing a netwide trace for the
"ORIGINAL AUTHOR" for any given patch/util if the code hasn't been updated for
ages, and the so-called "maintainers" just aren't around anywhere.
So what should one do if one finds a bug or two in Linux util/patches?
Should one look high and low for the [elusive] "maintainer"
or should one just post out the bug-fixed patch?!
Should there be a centralized clearinghouse for all the maintainers, so to make
it easier for people to find the _UP-TO-DATE_ addresses of the maintainers?
Note: The _UP-TO-DATE_ addresses of the maintainers
_is_ an important point because there exist
several addresses of the "maintainers" which
are no longer valid.
*I am _not_ refering to Mr. Johnson, btw.
Michael's address _is_ valid.*
IMHO, it is too silly to insist that people must adhere to the "POLITE DOCTRINE"
if the maintainers did nothing to announce their presence.
To the maintainers:
Please announce your presence, at least once-in-a-while,
in appropriate fora.
Please tell us which packages you are maintaining, and
what you expect us to do when we change/fix the code
of the packages you are maintaining.
Any comments?
Sincerely,
Pete
teamwork@freemail.c3.hu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/