Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
* Steve Langasek (vorlon@netexpress.net) [030814 15:35]:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:35:07PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Nicolas Bertolissio (nico.bertol@free.fr) [030814 13:20]:
> > > 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?
Showing the mail of the maintainer that declares me as a co-maintainer
of course.
> If you don't have the cooperation of the original maintainer, it's not
> co-maintainership.
Certainly. I just answered Nicolas mail that there isn't a hugh
difference between doing NMUs and co-maintainer uploads. IMHO there
is, e.g. at the question of sponsorship for uploads or that
co-maintainership documents that the different persons are acting
together and not against.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: