Maintaining ports (was Re: Support for Netscape/Mozilla plug-in on Linux AMD64 native platform)

[Kurt Miller]

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Kurt Miller wrote:
> 
>> If there was general porters group but a separate project for the BSD's
>> that might would work too.
> 
> It probably didn't came out as I wanted it, but yeah, the idea I'm
> toying around with is having a group for porters, and having separate
> projects for each port (bsd, icedtea [1], ...) with different source
> repositories as part of that group.
> 
> Since the current processes are focused around Members, and Members are
> instantiated by Groups, rather than Projects, for bootstrapping purposes
> we need some group that can handle member 'creation' for porting
> projects. We can have one such group, or we can have multiple groups,
> one for each porting project.

Ahh ok I understand now. Either way works and is fine for the BSD port.
Whatever you and the other existing Members/Groups decide is fine.

> Alternatively, we could rely on the contributions of potential members
> to porting projects to existing projects to become eventually
> significant enough for existing groups to let them in, and grant them
> membership status.
> 
> I'm not quite enthusiastic about that option, because it requires
> potential members to porting projects to first gain credibility doing
> something else, before they are allowed to be members of a porting project.

Indeed. That would raise the barriers for new ports to be very high
I would think.

Regards,
-Kurt