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

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking



I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for the 
xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time and sponsors of 
uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy as well, he ended up taking 
most of the responsibility. This was a similar situation; however, I felt 
it was necessary at the time considering the circumstances of the 
package having not being updated in over a year and a half despite new 
versions being out which fixed bugs, and the lack of any response from 
the package maintainer until after the NMU. I still doubt that I would 
have gotten any response from the maintainer at all had it not been for 
the actual package upload.

Regardless, I will try to follow Debian policy in the future in this 
capacity.  I would also like to extend apologies and a  suggestion to 
Christian, in that if you do not have time to keep up with maintenance 
of a package, it would be much appreciated if it was put up for adoption 
or orphaned so that another developer with the proper resources to 
maintain the package will to so. If you wish to continue working on 
logjam, I would be happy to volunteer as a backup maintainer if he is 
backlogged for some time, so that the package is properly kept 
up-to-date and bug-free.

Also, I would like to make a note of part of the Developer's reference 
in regards to NMUs, section 5.2.5:

"In any case, you should not be upset by the NMU. An NMU is not a 
personal attack against the maintainer. It is a proof that someone cares 
enough about the package and that they were willing to help you in your 
work, so you should be thankful."

I did not make the NMU to circumvent Christian's responsibilities nor 
did I make it as an insult to him or the Debian project. I hope that 
this can be put behind us and continue development as normal.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 02:45:19PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Um, so?  While yes the sponsor is at fault, it seems that you should
> also take responsibility for your actions.
> 
> It seems that after that incident you would have had significant
> desire to learn and follow the NMU policy.
> 
> So, I'd like to formally ask: have you read and do you plan to follow
> generally accepted procedures for future NMUs?

Attachment: pgpFjSklvDTU8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: