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

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

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:30:27 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> > 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.

Co-maintenance generally requires some amount of sponsorship, especially
for smaller packages.  If I could get away w/ simply committing to
CVS/SVN/arch repositories and having them magically turn into packages by
a team of hardworking co-maintainers in a timely fashion, I would.  That
hasn't been my experience so far, though.  OTOH, co-maintainers are great
for sponsorship, since they're obviously interested in the package.

I'd love to see exactly what's required (by both AMs and the DAM) to be
defined somewhere, if my original claim isn't the case.  For example,
<http://nm.debian.org/newnm.php> states that one should have packages in
the archive before even applying for NM. 
<http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-amchecklist> also states that
packagers must have a package in the archive (and recommends 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.

Minor QA stuff is already required by the NM process. 
I've submitted my share of patches to the BTS (mainly for packages I was
interested in), but I could see someone claiming that QA work doesn't
require a Debian account.  The *safe* route is to actually maintain some

> * 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.

This argument could be applied to pretty much everything except actually
uploading/maintaining packages.

> 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.

Heh.  I would think the BTS does a good job of documenting the
turd^Wapplicant's competency.  It's too bad the NM process doesn't require
more QA work; a few months of bug triaging per applicant would do wonders
for the state of the BTS.  It would also document not only the applicant's
competency, but their ability to communicate, work with other maintainers,

Reply to: