Re: [OT] lazy maintainers
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 07:55:35AM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2001 22:26:49 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:54:51AM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
> > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-nmu.en.html
> > >
> > > Do I even need to point out that this makes it painfully clear that
> > > it is off limits to do an NMU without the maintainer of the package
> > > giving explicit permission or else being MIA for a long time?
> >
> > it makes it painfully clear that it doesn't cover this situation.
>
> i guess.. you're blind. it speaks to it very plainly by stating the
> exclusive conditions for an NMU: a freeze, and (1) a consenting
> maintainer or (2) an MIA maintainer. I think possibly one could give
> exception to a maintainer that is a complete asshole, in the case of
> abiword for instance. In this situation, none of these conditions are
> present.
An NMU is not an insult to the maintainer, an implication of being
missing in action, or an act of utter desperation that implies the
package is going down the drain. NMUs are a way of improving Debian:
perhaps not the ideal way, but maintainers are human and don't always
have infinite time, and we should recognize that in our social
structures. The developer's reference makes it clear that you're
supposed to have some kind of good reason before doing one, not get in
the maintainer's way, absolutely not break things, and give sufficient
notice, but (I'm looking at the last paragraph of 7.3 now) I don't think
the restrictions in our system are as inflexible as you think.
Also note that "doesn't respond to requests for permission to NMU in
time" isn't the same as "MIA". Hell, my inbox has over two and a half
thousand messages in it and I'm fairly sure I'm not MIA.
> As I stated before maintaining != uploading. Have you never done
> significant work on a large and difficult package for a long period
> _before_ uploading it? In any case, even if you haven't, he is;
> unfortunately, many people are too interested in getting their latest
> mozilla to recognize this, hence the large amount of whining, accusing,
> and witch hunting aimed at a guy who's working hard.
I couldn't care less whether Myth uploads mozilla now or next year,
personally (although I do use and like his packages), but non-maintainer
work is not the end of the world and never has been.
> > nope. you showed nothing. you made an assertion, but that assertion is
> > just plain wrong.
>
> bzzzzzt bzzzzzzzzzzzt! hear that it is the big buzzer that means you
> are wrong wrong wrong! still going off AAAAA BZZZZZZZZZT IT IS GETTING
> LOUD AND LOUDER SIGNIFYING THE PROFOUND WRONGNESS OF YOU
> BUAAAAAAAAAAR!!!
Oh, take a chill pill already, get some sleep, go for a walk or
something. You're not impressing anyone.
> > maintaining a package is not ownership, it is custodianship.
>
> Yes, but, as debian developer documentation clearly points out,
> developers don't have the right to go fscking with each others'
> custodianship without consent or causes made clear in said
> documentation.
NMUs can help a maintainer, you know? They're not always "fscking with
his custodianship". Perhaps this isn't true of mozilla, but OTOH maybe
Myth would feel under less pressure if people didn't have to hassle him
about the 7 RC bugs. It varies from situation to situation.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: