Re: What to do with unresponsive maintainers?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:50:25PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 05:34:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> On the other hand a bug count on your package will be seen as badly
>> >> maintained during the NM process. So I can see why someone wants to
>> >> close all bugs he can do nothing about or not even reproduce.
>> > For the record: I have seen no single indication that this is true. If
>> > you really think that your statement is true, please show some
>> > references to that effect. Simply posing something without arguments
>> My xlife package having bugs and having been NMUed (on my request) was
>> used against me. So I have first hand knowledge of it.
> 1) Nobody was talking about NMU's before you mention them now
> 2) This is contradicted by the information you yourself gave me
> 3) You still didn't supply any reasonable indication that your original
> statement is true. You only claimed it again, just naming a package
> doesn't change that.
If you realy want you can read my DAM rejection.
> I don't think continuing this thread has much use, I won't be replying
> unless there really is something new. I originally only replied to you
> because I think it'd be bad if people would close bugs just because they
> read somewhere on a mailinglist that it'd other negatively impact their
> NM process.
> Note the 'just because', of course, closing bugs with good reason is
> never bad, this reason is just not a good one.
Nothing new to the thread. I can still see why someone would want to
close all bugs he can do nothing about or not even reproduce when
taking over a package. So I won't expect a reply.