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

Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:07:10PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12.23, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > 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.
> The problem is: do you honestly want to force people who don't want to have 
> comaintainers on their packages to leave Debian?

Hi vbi,
Packages, not being sentient, don't mind being comaintained, its people
who have objections to comaintaining packages. So its a social problem,
not a technical one. In most cases the comaintainers will not be equal
in technical skill, social skills, etc. Working together SHOULD benefit
both people and Debian. Does Debian need less/anti social folks? Is it
beneficial to Debian/the packages/the users? The lesser skilled
person(LSP) could gain skill. The more skilled person(MSP) should be
able to give the LSP some directed task (like I read about in the NM
proposal from 'HE'), thus providing a type of apprenticeship. The other
person does not have to know everything about the package, but could
offload some of the effort of the MSP. This allow the LSP to gain
technical as well as Debian skills(debian workflow and social norms). So
the LSP could be in the NM queue or be a less experience DD or someone
less skill in a certain language/specialized Debian task, this would
provide some way to bring folks in who want to expand their skills/role
but dont want to takeover a package like in certain one-point-of-failure

> 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?

Well if someone would treat another maintainer in that way or would
think an NMU intrusive, is that person being as social as Debian
expects? Is being able to working with someone (even if they may be less 
skilled) something uncommon to Debian? 

> Don't misunderstand me: team maintenance is great, and I think it makes 
> sense even for small and trivial packages.  But trying to force anybody to 
> do anything is no productive in Debian (and we'd have to modify the 
> constitution for this, anyway :-)

I guess there could be expections like there are for other things in
Debian (like p-a-s) but like openness, the more [comaintained] , the better.

pax vobiscum,
ps. happy $HOLIDAYS and $YEAR++
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
      `$'         $'         
       $          $                      _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$     $ $$ggggg$ $     $ $ ,$P""  $ $    $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $    $
 `Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: