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

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

Ari Pollak <compwiz@aripollak.com> writes:
> 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.

Oh, you're entirely right on that (except for the fact that the time
between the seventh of April nad the eighteenth of July is slightly less
than a year and a half).  At the time, I was tired of explaining to people
that I was ignoring new upstream versions of my packages until woody was
released, and as far as I was concerned, you were just another piece of
spam.  Given that you've spent the time since making the xscreensaver
maintainance job more difficult than it has to be, ignoring you was a
mistake, but I had no way of realizing it at the time.  None of this
changes the fact that I found out about a sponsored NMU of a new upstream
major version with significant changes to the packaging when my own upload
of the same version was rejected.

And at this point, even though I'd *love* to turn xscreensaver maintenance
over to someone I don't like, I still don't think I want you maintaining
something I type my password into on a regular basis until you learn to
play well with others.


Reply to: