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

Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing

[Thomas Hood]
> 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.

[Adrian von Bidder]
> The problem is: do you honestly want to force people who don't want
> to have comaintainers on their packages to leave Debian?

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the thinking of people
refusing to co-maintain packages, but am aware that there are a few of
those.  These seem to be the same with issues regarding cooperating
with the rest of the project as well, so yes, I guess I am am willing
to force them to leave Debian.

But perhaps we should not do this.  Perhaps the co-maintainer
requirement should only be implemented on high-profile packages?
Perhaps something like all packages used by more then 10% of the
debian population (as measured using popularity-contest) should be
required to have co-maintainers?  This way the people with
co-maintainer issues can do the little used packages, and the more
used (and presumably more important) packages will have a team of
people working on them.

At the very minimum, I believe all base packages (those installed by
debootstrap by default) should have co-maintainers.

If the package is important for Debian, it is too important to leave
in the hand of only one person.  People go tired, get occupied with
real life or are run over by a bus.  The maintenence of important
packages in Debian should not stop when any of these things happen,
and because of this I seriously believe all packages in Debian should
have co-maintainers.

> Or do you want people who really don't want to have comaintainers
> for their packages to put somebody in just so they are following the
> rules, while they regard anything done by this comaintainer on his
> own like they would regard an intrusive NMU?

That would not be co-maintenence, but lying to the project about how
they follow the project rules.  Should we trust these people to
maintain packages in Debian?

And yes, we would probably need to change the constitution to make
this happen, so it will take a while.  :/

Reply to: