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

Re: About NM and Next Release



Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> writes:

> Debian has had a very slow NM process for a very long time, it took over
> a year for me to be processed when I became DD in July 2000. That was
> before the new NM queue structure that is in place now. The only people
> actually waiting that long now (aiui) are people James does not want in
> the project at all. It would be good to get rid of their applications
> entirely so that other prospective maintainers don't get the wrong idea
> that it takes 2-3 years to be processed.

Yes. Or at least some comments on the application indicating what he
doesn't like.

Say the DAM doesn't like the RC bug on the NMs package. But the NM is
just waiting to become DD to upload a fix and can't be bothered to get
another sponsor. You have a classic deadlock a simple comment on the
application would solve.
 
> Also, it seems like most DD's don't maintain many packages anyway. Yes
> there are other things that a DD can do other than just maintain
> packages, like help with web translations, boot floppies, etc. But nearly

Working on boot-floppies and debian-installer is not realy fruitfull
as non-DD. cvs access goes a long way there.

And for translations, doesn't the automatic translation mechanism
(that sends you package descriptions to translate) only for for DDs?
Not sure though since I know I can't be trusted to translate stuff.

> two thirds of the developers/sponsored developers maintain 4 sources or
> less [0]. If even half of those 746 maintainers focused on helping close
> RC bugs we would probably be close to releaseable today.
> 
> We don't need more people to throw at the problem, we need more people
> willing to do work for the project.
> 
> Chris
> 
> [0]
> http://www.debian.gr.jp/~kitame/maint.cgi?num=srcs&limit=1300&maint=
> 
> 1226 Maintainers Total
> 480 - 4  61%
> 575 - 3  53%
> 719 - 2  41%
> 878 - 1  28%

And how many packages by NMs?

MfG
        Goswin



Reply to: