Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:53:57PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > "Marcelo E. Magallon" <email@example.com> writes:
> > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 05:17:11PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > > In most cases, this "accepted way" leads to no change in the
> > > > > > package and is only frustrating for the submitter of the patch
> > > > > > and Goswin's proposal addresses such cases. I like the idea a lot
> > > > > >  and am sure that this will improve the overall quality of
> > > > > > Debian.
> > > > > I don't think that declarations about co-maintainership will
> > > > > improve the quality of Debian, but more NMUs would.
> > > > Will you sponsor Marc or me for NMUs?
> > > Well, as long as you do proper NMUs and provide evidence that you have
> > > contacted the maintainer (e.g., record in the BTS) regarding the issue,
> > > I'm sure there's plently of people in the project who would gladly
> > > sponsor an NMU. The thing about NMUs is (and this flew past Goswin who
> > You obviously never had to look for a sponsor.
> > > couldn't see the forest for the trees) your are better familiar with
> > > the package you are NMUing, that means you know how to make sure that
> > > you didn't break it. In the case of an sponsored NMU not only you but
> > > also the sponsor have to fulfill that requirement, and for some
> > > packages that might limit the pontential sponsors.
> > Thats why its so damn near impossible to get any base packages fixed
> > via sponsor. People don't dare touch essential or important packages
> > risking their neck for something some NM dared to patch.
> > > In short: make a source package available, post to -mentors or -qa or
> > > -devel asking for a sponsor.
> > I did make it available and I asked on -devel. Still no use.
> FWIW, I would never sponsor an NMU. If the patches are in the BTS, I
> might accept the suggestion that the package be NMUed, and NMU it myself
> based on the work that an NM has done; but sponsoring an NMU doesn't
> make any sense.
So we have to go through the "waiting for the maintainer not to reply,
finding a sponsor, waiting for the delayed NMU to go through" cycle
for every single one line bugfix instead of doing one NMU that will
fix 20 bugs in one go?
Doesn't sound very economical.
The patches are in the BTS. Please go and NMU them or tell the
submitters why not.