On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:17:17PM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
> I don't think it would be too laborious to see 2 or 3 rounds of
> discussion about patches on here. if it doesn't go anyware, i'd say the
> next place should be the maintenance list for the package.
FWIW, I was not worried about the excessive traffic on this list, rather
by the fact that we should not convince ourselves that this list has all
the needed competences to *decide* upon technical matters related to the
integration of derivatives patches. We have the competences to reach out
to the right people, but there is a trade-off there in doing it here and
having one hope more, and doing it elsewhere where we have better hopes
of finding eyes which can decide right ahead. Regarding the maintenance
list, I fully agree with that, but I dare to speculate that we are
probably going to hit quite some "one man show" packages, probably with
MIA maintainers, and for that we'll need actions like NMUs. So that
won't always be an option I fear (although I obviously agree it *should*
be tried, which bring us right to another topic I've mentioned,
i.e. monitoring of leftovers).
> > On the converse side, we might also want to start maintaining a list
> > of divergences which are not meant to be reconciled. That happens
> > sometimes in Debian wrt upstream, it'll probably be the case also for
> > derivatives. Although those cases are unfortunate, it's in our
> > interest to keep such a list somewhere, so that we avoid
> > re-considering them over and over again.
>
> Usertagged and or added to UDD?
Usertags are all stored in UDD, so the former implies the second. Yes,
that's an option, but we'll also need a social process to make that list
visible and maintain it current.
> > Sponsor the Ubuntu maintainer to upload in Debian would probably be
> > the best option, possibly inviting them to maintain the package
> > directly in Debian. I suggest to ask for feedback on -mentors on this
> > specific topic.
>
> Is team maintaining (orphan) packages something that we should consider
> as derivatives, or just trying to find interested maintainers for said
> packages?
This is a semi-recurrent topic on -qa. The notion of "maintaining"
orphaned packages is not particularly welcome there (and I tend to agree
with that): either the packages find maintainers which are interested in
maintaining them *per se*, or they should be left orphaned / removed
from the archive. Overtime, I've grown weary of catch-all teams that
maintains packages which as the only thing in common have "just because
no one else maintain them". IMHO, we should better direct our energies
to infrastructure and activity coordination, but of course no one will
step volunteers from adopting orphaned packages :-)
Cheers.
PS I'll get back to the other mails of this thread during the week-end
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature