Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
* Andres Salomon (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040830 05:25]:
> 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).
Well, as an AM I look what the applicant wants to do, and if he has
shown that he can do that (and of course, that his plans fit to
Debian). That means, if an applicant says that he wants mainly
maintain packages, than I want to see one or more packages in the
archive (one is only sufficient if it's not too easy). If he instead
says that he wants to do mainly QA-work, I'm reviewing what he did do
there. Same is true for porters etc.
As most people apply as package maintainers, most applicants are
required to have package(s) in the archive. (However, people applying
as non-package-maintainers usually have enough packages in the archive
for a package maintainer.)
> 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
In fact, QA work _does_ require an account. You quite often need
access to madison, melanie, qa cvs, mia database, ..., and it's quite
difficult to do QA work without being able to log into merkel - and
sometimes, QA work even requires NMUs (now, the circle is closed, and
we're back at the beginning ;).
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C