Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing

[Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net>]

On 21-Dec-05, 13:10 (CST), Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 
> How much would this rule "hurt" those lone ranger maintainers you are
> talking about, the ones who package everything perfectly and cannot
> possibly do any better?
> 
> It turns out that there is no need for them to be hurt at all.  Lone
> can carry on working as before and find a co-maintainer who won't get
> in his way.

Or, the Lone Ranger can say "screw this crap" and orphan all her
packages.

> In other words, this rule can have only positive effects.  :)

That doesn't sound too positive to me.

If you think it's acceptable, under the "must have a co-maintainer"
rule, to have a co-maintainer who doesn't actually do anything except
have their name in the control file, it's pretty clear that the rule is
pure bureaucracy.

Yes, there are some maintainers and/or some packages for which
co-maintenance is a good idea. Luckily, they seem to be figuring it out
on their own. If you have some particular packages in mind, go offer to
help. 

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net