On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:13:23 +0800
Ray Rashif <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 03/03/2010, Hilton Medeiros <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I disagree. I believe the developer should have priority and be
> > given the ownership as soon as possible. You don't have to wait the
> > maintainer kiss good bye e hug the build. It is just a build script.
> I concur, but it's rude for us to just barge in like that. It's a
> simple matter between the developer and the buildscript maintainer, so
> it's best left up to them to contact each other, and then if the
> maintainer tries anything funny (or does not try anything at all) we
> disown it.
> A 7-day or next-weekend grace period is good for things like this (for
> the maintainer to respond to the orphan request). I had once orphaned
> a package for a developer who didn't even claim it (synfig*), but it
> took me a while before I read and replied to the e-mail outlining a
> build-related matter.
> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
I understand, just thought the process was a little too much
bureaucratic for the developer. I maintain some packages and I would
not feel violated by the TUs over something like this but maybe that is
I don't think it would be rudeness but maybe I'm really kinda rude, so
my words don't count for much.