Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
Nicolas Bertolissio <nico.bertol@free.fr> writes:
> Le jeudi 14 août 2003, Andreas Barth écrit :
> > * 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.
> No because I'm not a DD ;)
>
> Sorry, maybe I missed something, but what is the difference for the
> sponsor?
Ever tried to get someone to sponsor an NMU for say mount?
Most people, if they are willing to sponsor at all, take one look at
db.debian.org and say: Hey, the maintainer is active, talk to him.
Of cause that never works or one wouldn't need to NMU.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: