Re: Proposal for collaborative maintenance of packages
> On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:37 -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
>>just a matter to publish the patches (a good PQM will do that for you)
>>and let the others branch' maintainers do the merge when necessary.
> Publishing patches is a serious pain in the backside
> and a huge impediment to cooperation. I would never bother
> to do any serious work that way. Committing directly is the
> only effective way.
I'm not sure that you understood my point. The contributor with skills
should commit into his own branch, the joe contributor should be allowed
do it by other way. The way kernel hackers handle this corner case today
is by mail. There is only one PQM and i think it is a "next step". We
just could do it first.
"publishing patches" aren't a serious pain since the debian BTS and the
"patch" tag works well in a lot of cases, not the one that is on the
There are downsides of a PQM to cover "joe contributors", one of them
being the lazyness of real branch maintainers. It is like Jeff Garzik
(libata maintainer) just stopped accepting patches by mail and only
merging from people using git, like him.
My suggestion was go a step further into that "by mail" approach using a
patch queue manager. Same deal to the contributor - mail something, more
organization but the same work for branch maintainers - everyone can see
individual patches (yes, a ML like lkml works in a similar way but with
Gustavo Franco - <email@example.com>