[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 07:30:27PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> 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

And yet there's several applicants in the system with "on hold until they
have a package in the archive".  Unless "a package in the archive" is code
for the things you've written above, FD comments are in conflict with what
you've just written.

I don't have much of an opinion either way -- obviously we want people who
know what they're doing and have a demonstrated dedication to the work that
Debian's doing.  "Package in the archive" just seems like the only way to
demonstrate that at the moment, based on the evidence available (notes in
the AM DB, comments from tbm on -newmaint, and observations).

> 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.

I thoroughly agree with this statement, although I don't know if I'd *quite*
go so far as to make a comparison with fecal matter.

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: