[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Maintainers
Date writes:
>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"
>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.

The source code includes my email address. Andrea clearly saw it; he
dropped in a similar line below it. I have done EVERY piece of
maintenance that I have EVER been asked to. Some software simply does
not require a lot of maintenance because it is relatively simple.
Doing regular noop releases just to assert ownership is childish.

I'm here, my CURRENT email is in the source code, I own the copyright,
no one ever told me that I'm dead, no one ever sent me a patch or asked
me to make a change.

All that said, if I'd simply been asked to relinquish maintainership to
Andrea, I might well have agreed. Andrea has now actively refused to
so much as send me a patch. How rude can you get?

>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?!

If Andrea had even posted the patch, that would have been better,
even if he didn't bother to tell me about it, if I found out about
it, I could look at it and decide whether to apply it as it stands
or to rework it.

By contrast, Andrea
o knew my email address
o couldn't bother himself to drop me a note
o now actively refuses to send me a patch
o castigates me for being unhappy about this
o insists that his doing so is appropriate

> Please announce your presence, at least once-in-a-while,
> in appropriate fora.

That's silly. The established convention is to put contact information
in the package. Putting the burden on the maintainer to say over and
over to the whole world, "Hey, look at me, look at this software I
maintain!" is ludicrous.


This whole thing is way overblown, and I didn't mean to make a huge deal
of it. tunelp is, by design, a small program. I'm not unwilling to
consider handing it off if that's appropriate. The only reason I keep
talking about this is that I'm worried about a general uncooperative
spirit here damaging the whole community. I can lick my wounds and shut
up -- that's what I did for months until the problem was brought up by
someone else and my opinion asked...


"Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?"

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.054 / U:5.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site