Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> 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.
You would point at policy or at a co-maintainer-hijacking-practice.txt
and say it due to unresponsiveness of the maintainer.
Also the thread alone of saying "I would like to help and policy says I
could just hijack co-maintainership" makes things a more urgent
busyness.
It would be like the delayed NMU. Unless the maintainer gets out of
bed and does something he will have no say in it.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: