[Development] Maintainership of QtNetwork

André Pönitz andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Mon Nov 4 20:58:50 CET 2013

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 04:25:26PM +0000, Koehne Kai wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- From:
> > development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org
> > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org] On
> > Behalf Of Richard Moore Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:32 PM To:
> > development at qt-project.org Subject: [Development] Maintainership of
> > QtNetwork
> > 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > As some of you may know, Shane has a new job and therefore has a lot
> > less time to spend on QtNetwork. He, Peter and I have discussed how we
> > should maintain the module in the future. What we're proposing is that
> > Peter and I take over as joint maintainers since neither of us has the
> > time to keep on top of things alone. Anyone looking to help out in this
> > area should feel free to drop us a mail.
> This isn't a veto or anything, but having two 'equal' maintainers for the
> same area sounds odd to me. I mean, it's perfectly fine that you split up
> the workload, but the point of having a nominal maintainer is to have
> _one_ person to go to, and _one_ person who can decide if there's need
> ... It doesn't mean that the maintainer can't delegate his work though,
> up to the point that whomever he trusts can act as a de-facto decision
> maker, too.

Well, I am pretty much in the other camp. I see no problem here, neither of
the setup in general (better bus factor, less chance of overload, something
that rather should be encouraged...) nor with Rich and Peter in particular.

If a contributor want a "definite maintainer answer" he puts both 
co-maintainers on the reviewer list. Something will happen.


More information about the Development mailing list