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

Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:23:32 +0100, Thomas Hood
<jdthood@82-171-132-56.dsl.ip.tiscali.nl> said:  

>> Mandatory teams for packages seems ridiculous to me.

>> Lots of packages are so small that having to arrange a team for
>> them, even if it is only the effort to set up and subscribe to a
>> team mailing list, is wasteful. Not everyone likes to work in a
>> close team, either, and we shouldn't exclude them.

> I don't think that it is ridiculous to require that every package
> have a team behind it---i.e., at least two maintainers.

        While opinions are fine, I personally do not share yours in
 this regards.

> 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.

        Hmm. The question is, can I find someone whose judgement I can
 trust, who has the time to spend on it, and who would not require me
 to change my methodology to the extent that would make managing my
 packages to burdensome for me.

        Well, so far, I have not gotten co-maintainers. I am not sure
 I am going to spend a whole lot of effort to garner any, anyway, since
 I am not yet convinced that diluting responsibility for my packages
 would be a net win for my users.

        And if you are saying that you consider me and my packages not
 to be an asset to Debian, than all I can respond with is amusement.

> Second, putting packages in the custody of a team makes it easy for
> a tired maintainer to relinquish control.

        When I get that tired, I'll follow the established mechanisms
 for relinquishing control. I do not need to carry bureaucratic
 baggage for years in order to facilitate letting go when I need to.  

> If the team works via an alioth project then there are many
> benefits. Code is kept under version control and thus backed up; the
> change history can be easily viewed by anyone; the mailing list
> becomes an easily browsed history of package development.  Team
> maintainership is working very well for some other distributions.

        None of this requires a team. (take a look at
 http://arch.debian.org/arch/private/srivasta  before you think of
 refuting this statement).

> I would support requiring team maintainership because TM will be
> beneficial in almost all cases and making it a requirement it cuts
> off a lot of useless discussion.

        Silly requirements like this would just be crying to be
 flouted. I, for one, have absolutely no intention of  listening to

        Personally, a board is made of wood, and bureaucratic
 ossification and dilution of responsibility when  doing a task is
 someone elses responsibility don't always improve matters.

Why use Windows, since there is a door? (By
fachat@galileo.rhein-neckar.de, Andre Fachat)
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: