Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 05:17:11PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > I don't think that declarations about co-maintainership will
> > > improve the quality of Debian, but more NMUs would.
> >
> > Will you sponsor Marc or me for NMUs?
>
> Well, as long as you do proper NMUs and provide evidence that you have
> contacted the maintainer (e.g., record in the BTS) regarding the issue,
> I'm sure there's plently of people in the project who would gladly
> sponsor an NMU. The thing about NMUs is (and this flew past Goswin who
You obviously never had to look for a sponsor.
> couldn't see the forest for the trees) your are better familiar with
> the package you are NMUing, that means you know how to make sure that
> you didn't break it. In the case of an sponsored NMU not only you but
> also the sponsor have to fulfill that requirement, and for some
> packages that might limit the pontential sponsors.
Thats why its so damn near impossible to get any base packages fixed
via sponsor. People don't dare touch essential or important packages
risking their neck for something some NM dared to patch.
> In short: make a source package available, post to -mentors or -qa or
> -devel asking for a sponsor.
I did make it available and I asked on -devel. Still no use.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: