Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:10:41PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> > 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
> I suggested co-maintainership instead of full blown hijacking because
> it should be less problematic. The old maintainer would still keep his
So really all you want is a relaxation of the NMU rules based on some
objective metric for determining if a package needs care and feeding?
The PTS allows you to get all the mail from the BTS already so that's
not an issue.
It seems silly to talk about comaintainership without the active
participation of all the parties concerned - either you're working with
the existing maintainer and you can just agree with them without metrics
or you're not working with them in which case it seems better to call a
spade a spade and refer to what's going on as NMUing.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Reply to: