[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this



On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:51:20PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:58:07 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Really not interested in continuing this...
> 
> > 
> >> Ultimately, it's a trust issue; you might find it dangerous for a DD
> >> to trust the non-DD, but that's the path that Debian has chosen by
> >> making sponsorship a requirement for NM, and the NM process itself so
> >> drawn out.
> > 
> > Sponsorship isn't a requirement for NM.
> 
> Eh?  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.new-maintainer/1359

"Note that co-maintaining a package with a developer would be a great
way to get some experience."

Co-maintenance != sponsorship, and is in fact strongly encouraged over
sponsorship.

Other things that are adequate substitutes for having a package
sponsored include:

* QA work, especially in supplying patches for bug reports.  If I *ever*
  had an NM who did invaluable work like this, I'd shit myself.

* Bug triaging, especially for poorly maintained packages would be great

* Writing documentation, though I question that one if that's the only
  work done.  You don't really need developer privileges to write
  documentation.

Applicants who maintain a single trivial package and do nothing else for
Debian are barely better than those that don't even have a package.
Running dh_make is utterly trivial, most likely no one actually uses the
package so no bug reports need to be handled...  Basically it's
completely impossible to tell if the applicant is any more competent
than a turd.

-- 
Blast you and your estrogenical treachery!



Reply to: