Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 03:19:10PM -0500, Ari Pollak wrote:
> Regardless, I will try to follow Debian policy in the future in this
> capacity. I would also like to extend apologies and a suggestion to
> Christian, in that if you do not have time to keep up with maintenance
> of a package, it would be much appreciated if it was put up for adoption
> or orphaned so that another developer with the proper resources to
> maintain the package will to so.
Right. But you could also offer your help and I could be very happy.
Your "pings" seemed to be annoying requests (if you think about your one
line mail and your bug report for a new release the same day logjam 4
has been released... :) ) and not an help offer. What about saying "hi,
I'd like to maintain or help you with logjam", or "I have new
ready packages here: <URL>". It's another way to collaborate". :)
> If you wish to continue working on
> logjam, I would be happy to volunteer as a backup maintainer if he is
> backlogged for some time, so that the package is properly kept
> up-to-date and bug-free.
You are following in a good way its development and I can only be happy
if logjam can be "fully" maintained. So, good work! ;-)
Apologies again from me because of my lack of responsibility for the
work on logjam package.
I wanted to put this question under discussion because I think we can
always have better way to work... for us and for the whole Project.
bye
Christian
--
Christian Surchi, csurchi@debian.org, christian@firenze.linux.it | ICQ
www.debian.org - www.softwarelibero.it - www.firenze.linux.it | 38374818
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run
like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
Reply to: