Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: >> (ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve it. In >> fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for it. > On that score, I agree. I would further say there are three main aspects to > that: Thanks for taking the time to read, understand and reply to my explanation of what I feel to be the problem with sponsorship. I feel that you value my opinion. Especially the part were you completly ignore it shows off your amazing leadership skills. > - sponsored maintainers are inhibited from fixing bugs they > introduce; if their regular sponsor is missing or they don't > have a regular sponsor, bugs will be left unfixed until they > can find someone else -- in spite of someone being aware of > the problem, ready with a fix, and wanting to upload it. You mean those myriads of bugs tagged "pending", waiting for a sponsor to come along? People begging on -mentors to finally let them fix their bugs, as they weren't able to find a sponsor yet? > - there's no tracking of sponsored maintainers, so it's > possible for sponsored-maintainers to shop around for someone to > sponsor their packages if they're uploading something someone > rejects; "when mummy says no, ask daddy", except multiplied > by up to 1000 developers. Sure, giving those people direct upload privileges fixes the problem of nagging a thousand developers. Usually, the way to shut up children who want cookies is to give them a car, a hundred bucks and map with the way to the next supermarket marked, right? > - it doesn't matter if the maintainer is good, only if the > package is, so sponsorship doesn't promote skills that help > avoid bugs being introduced so much as remove specific bugs > that the sponsor manages to spot Whereas the DM keyring team has a magic wand turning white when a maintainer is good, so that they can give upload priviliges only to those people who are good? > The proposal addresses all those things It doesn't. Please start coping with reality before fucking up Debian even more. >>  In fact, my original understanding of the whole idea was that a >> small set of DDs (like the proposed DM keyring maintainers) would >> check every package before a DM would be allowed to upload it on >> its own. I thought that to be something very, very positive, as it >> would ensure at least one thorough and proper check, instead of the >> current tradition of minimal checking done by sponsors. > I don't think I've ever seen that interpretation before. You have. We discussed it. > I certainly don't remember seeing it. That's probably why you didn't quote the relevant private IRC logs in one of your past mails. > I don't think reviewing packages like that is something I'd like to do, > personally. Right, reviewing packages is not really your kind of work. NEW certainly looks like you never do that. Marc -- BOFH #198: Post-it Note Sludge leaked into the monitor.
Description: PGP signature