Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:24:40PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
>
> > > 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.
>
> So your intention is to hijack the package. Then cut the crap about
> being a "co-maintainer" if you have no intention of working together
> with the existing maintainer. If the package needs to be hijacked due
> to maintainer inactivity, you should honestly present this as your
> reason for requesting sponsorship instead of trying to be named a
> co-maintainer of a package whose maintainer is MIA.
Its for packages where the maintainer isn't MIA but just not working
on this one package.
For packages where the maintainer seems to have to much other stuff on
his handsfor the last say half year to bother about the small problems.
Packages you feel you can lend a helping hand without being the sole
person behind the package.
For something like util-linux where you could care about mount without
too much bothering about the rest of it.
I suggested co-maintainership instead of full blown hijacking because
it should be less problematic. The old maintainer would still keep his
package but the helper would also get bugreports and can more easily
fix stuff without going through the full NMU process of asking the
maintainer, waiting for no reply and then doing a delayed NMU.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: