>>>>> "ST" == Stephen J Turnbull
ST> Even though package maintainers have accepted responsibility
ST> their packages, I don't think package maintainers need to be
ST> qualified to *fix* bugs. They just need to know who can fix them,
ST> and how to find those people.
Indeed, but I think this begs the question of what does it mean for
someone to take resposibility for a bug.
What I mean by that is someone who, at lest when asked, will say
whether or not code (etc) will get written, and when. A developer can
do that; that's what it means to be open source. Other contributors,
including package maintainers, may not want to commit to it.
It could mean responsibility for driving a discussion with the
upstream package provider and getting the issue resolved that way.
And in that sense I'd be fine with having package maintainers
assigned to issues in any of their packages.
I would, too. But not all maintainers are in a position to actually
drive discussion. My proposal is to leave that judgment up to the
So on whole, I think your current plan (address issue284, issue296)
Good. If you have any ideas, feel free to let me know.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list