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

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

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 12:46:48PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:30:27PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > 
> > "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).

I think that's because "doesn't have a package" is a lot more concrete
than "does something useful."  I don't think it's ever been a strict
requirement, but for NM's that have done nothing at all, it at least
gives then something to do.

It's only recently become apparent that requiring a sponsored package
causes a lot of problems.  For example, it has prompted a deluge of
requests for sponsorship of absolute garbage.  NM's tend to search out
and package anything, no matter how useless it is, just to meet the
requirement.  How often do you see a RFS for an interesting package?
Maybe 1 out of every 50 requests?

And then there's the issue with some developers not thorougly checking
sponsored packages, or even signing and uploading packages they haven't
even built themselves...

So, it seems best to move away from the sponsorship requirement and move
toward co-maintenance and other alternatives instead.  At least that's
what I gathered from talking to tbm and others at the last Debconf.

Blast you and your estrogenical treachery!

Reply to: