On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:35:07PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Nicolas Bertolissio (nico.bertol@free.fr) [030814 13:20]: > > Le jeudi 14 août 2003, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt écrit : > > > In most cases, this "accepted way" leads to no change in the package and > > > is only frustrating for the submitter of the patch and Goswin's proposal > > > addresses such cases. I like the idea a lot [1] and am sure that this > > > will improve the overall quality of Debian. > > An NMU can then be done if the package maintainer does not answer to > > this patch. So you don't need to have a co-maintainer, you just have to > > make a NMU, which is just what the new co-maintainer would do. > Would you sponsor Marc, Goswin or myself for a NMU? Would you sponsor > for a co-maintainer upload? That's the important difference. So you want to be *declared* a co-maintainer in order to convince people they should sponsor you? You're only a co-maintainer if your name shows up in the Uploaders: field of the package; how are you going to persuade someone to make /that/ change in a sponsored NMU? If you don't have the cooperation of the original maintainer, it's not co-maintainership. If you /do/ have the cooperation of the original maintainer, he should in all likelihood be your first choice for a sponsor, and I wouldn't sponsor a co-maintainer upload either without understanding why the primary maintainer isn't uploading it. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpOGvLQDDRwz.pgp
Description: PGP signature