Stephen Peters wrote:
> > I disagree with you on this point. At least for me it seems quite
> > obvious that the bad behaviour was first on "our" side, namely in
> > the person of 'madkiss' who seem to have done a really bad job on
> > maintaining micq.
>
> As a new maintainer, I'm trying to figure out what constitutes doing a
> "really bad job" here. It certainly sounds like madkiss was less than
> responsive to the desires of upstream, but looking over the bug
> reports it seems like he was doing the right thing
Maintaining a good relationship with upstream is a sizable chunk of
doing a good job maintaining a package. Without such a relationship, you
cannot --
-- pass bugs and feature request upstream with any certainty that they
will be heeded
-- be sure that upstream is passing any misdirected (sent directly to
upstream and debian specific) bug reports from Debian users back down
to you
-- find out in advance about any plans that you need to be prepared for
-- make sure that upstream is happy with your work, and that you're
not messing up anything non-obvious in the packaging
I think it's reasonable to say that anyone with a grave personality
conflict with upstream cannot possibly be doing a very good job as a
maintainer of a package. Unless they've forked it. :-P
--
see shy jo, who's forked one, sadly (mindterm)
Attachment:
pgpmFp1qFVZOF.pgp
Description: PGP signature