Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
* Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005:12:21 12:23 +0100]:
> I don't think that it is ridiculous to require that every package have a
> team behind it---i.e., at least two maintainers. First, if someone can't
> find ONE other person willing to be named as a co-maintainer of a given
> package then I would seriously doubt that that package (or that person)
> is an asset to Debian.
I disagree. There are plenty of people who are maintaining packages
alone that are doing an excellent job, they just don't happen to get
shout-outs on the -qa list. Quite a lot of people in Debian are
responsible enough to go it alone as well as to know when it's time to
pass the torch. Forcing team maintenance on people would result in very
few technical enhancements for such maintainers and would probably
engender quite a bit of resentment (nevermind the fact that they'd
likely resist altogether).
It just seems to me like telling responsible DDs who've done a stellar job
that they need a babysitter is a bit... insulting.
> Second, putting packages in the custody of a
> team makes it easy for a tired maintainer to relinquish control.
Is that always true though? For example, I can see how that could
benefit some of the more isolated members of Debian who aren't in
constant communication with other developers, but the ones who are --
half of the time they just say "anyone want this package?" and that's
about all there is to it.
> Team maintainership is working very well for some other distributions.
That may be true, but it's not a good argument for forcing such a
situation in Debian.
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide