Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing
On 21-Dec-05, 13:10 (CST), Thomas Hood <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> 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
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
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