[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Co-maintainership of base packages by the debian-boot team?

karlheg@bittersweet.inetarena.com (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:

> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
>     Adam> Yes.  More care should be given to the base set.  We need to file bugs
>     Adam> now, and agressively, against them.
>  I have a better idea.  Let's take out the "middle man" somewhat...
>     Adam> A lot of people blame bf for delaying release but in fact we spent
>     Adam> much of our time waiting for fixes in base or kernels.
>  Why wait around for someone else, who may be busy with something in
>  their own immediate surroundings?  I think we should *negotiate* to
>  become co-maintainer's of those packages.  Perhaps we should
>  institute this in Policy?  That the `debian-boot' team is the
>  co-maintainer of each base package, giving us rights to make uploads,
>  etc???  Should I attempt to draft a proposal?  That would make each
>  of the maintainers of base packages a member of our team.  Each would
>  retain main control over their package perhaps?

I don't think so.  If we need to NMU stuff, why don't we just do so?
I think already, as maintainers of the boot-floppies/installer team,
our word and our work carries a lot of weight with the archive

I don't see any reason to give this group more responsibilities.
Proper delagation and pre-testing and bug filing against base packages
is what has to go on early.  So I would argue that having an
aggressive testing team who is testing pure base as early as possible
is going to fix the problem -- not any additional policy.

>  [potential other thread here] ... those packages ought to be CVS
>  tracked where we can all get at them also.  Vendor tracked.  Strict
>  rules about how CVS is to be used, akin to what the DRI people use,
>  perhaps?
>                http://dri.sourceforge.net/cvspolicy.txt

Ugh.  Ick.  I much prefer, and we are much closer to, XP
methodologies.  Having all developers working on branches sounds like
a huge nightmare.  It's a much better goal for people to integrate
their work as quickly as possible (i.e., every day), perhaps
supporting this with a test suite.

>  ... that and a tagging scheme something like how `cvs-buildpackage'
>  is supposed to work?  What do yous think?

Well, yes, we should codify that some.  But for debian-installer, I
would hope you could pretty much just use cvs-buildpackage to build

>  To keep control over the package in the hands of the maintainer
>  (perhaps not necessary in all cases, but is in some), we could create
>  a patch queue mailing list for each one.  Each team member keeps an
>  anoncvs checkout of them.  When you modify something, you create a
>  patch and ChangeLog, and mail it to the patch queue for that package,
>  for the maintainer to review, reject or approve, apply, and commit.
>  (This is how the XEmacs team handles it.)

I don't see how such bureaucracy and additional overhead is going to
make our lives easier.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: