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

Re: Let's be friends. (Non-maintainer uploads made easier)



Hi!

First of all, I really like the idea. And it's not so new: it's
formerly known as a backup maintainer ;-)

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:

> joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen)  wrote on 24.10.97 in <[🔎] m0xOlbh-000CL6C@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl>:
> 
> > > 	Unless I am missing something, this proposal actually
> > >  restricts the candidates for non-maintainer uploads; I also fail to
> > >  see how it makes non-maintainer uploads any easier.
> 
> That's also my impression.
> 
> > Yes, you are missing something: the "friends" uploads are considered
> > to be basically the same as maintainer uploads; the "friends" uploads
> > are *encouraged*. Maybe a better name of "friend" would
> > be "Vice-Maintainers", or, "Replacement-Maintainers", in that, when
> > the real maintainer is away, the "friends" take on the role of the
> > real maintainer.
> 
> And just how does this make non-maintainer uploads easier?
 
> I really don't see the point. The maintainer can always tell other people  
> to go ahead, make a NMU (we see this happen all the time).

yes, they can, be they don't do it. The friends/backup maintainer
provides a mechanism for getting more people involved with a specific
package. IMHO there shouldn't be to many friends, because I think that
they should share some responsibility for the concrete package among
the whole group.

The new mechanism can also be used for getting new (shy) maintainers
to work for Debian, i.e. they can first get a friends/backup
maintainer but don't have to be a full maintainer from the beginning.
 
> Just what, exactly, will be different under the proposed scheme?

> (You say that the current scheme is equivalent to Friends: nobody. Seems  
> to me that it rather is equivalent to Friends: debian-keyring instead.)

yes, officially your right, but we don't want to do something that the
main maintainer don't want. So we aren't do anything and still wait
for the maintainer. In the scheme today there is only one person
*responsible* for each package. That should change, especially for
vital packages.

Bye
  Christian

-- 
Christian Leutloff, Aachen, Germany
  leutloff@sundancer.oche.de  http://www.oche.de/~leutloff/

Debian GNU/Linux 1.3.1! Mehr unter http://www.de.debian.org/

Attachment: pgpycFenPNsS8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: