[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 12:23:32PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> First, thanks to Lars for drawing our attention to an important topic
> and for taking an initiative that is long overdue.
> Lars, I agree fully with what you say.  When it comes to team
> maintenance I would go even further than you do.  You say:
> >     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.  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.  Second, putting packages in the custody of a

It really depend on what you mean with an asset. Just because a package
do not have a big userbase do not say that it is unimportant.

To find someone to be named as co-maintainer is quite easy. It is _much_
harder to find a real co-maintainer, that will actually make some work.

If you mean that every package should have at least one other person
that is willing to upload critical fixes, all packages already have that
as all maintainers (or very many of them at least) will NMU packages
if they have RC bugs with a patch... :)

> team makes it easy for a tired maintainer to relinquish control.  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.
> 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.  There are several packages in Debian that are

I do not agree, obviously. :)



// Ola

 --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/  opal@debian.org                     Annebergsslingan 37      \
|  opal@lysator.liu.se                 654 65 KARLSTAD          |
|  +46 (0)54-10 14 30                  +46 (0)70-332 1551       |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org             UIN/icq: 4912500         |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /

Reply to: