Re: Intent to hijack Bacula
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:12:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I have not withdrawn my intent to take over Bacula. I am volunteering
> > to do some pretty significant work on it, and have already done so.
>
> You should not go ahead and remove José from maintenance over his
> objection if he offers you co-maintenance. Your reason for hijacking
> bacula seems to have been that José was slacking, not anything personal
> or some such. In that case, I can understand that you want to take over
Well, I would say it's more that he has written very poor code -- some
of which has been broken for several years -- and has not made much
effort to fix it. For at least some of it, he does not believe there is
a problem. Take a look at the BTS if you want. My first NMU closed 22
bugs (or will, once it gets out of NEW).
> so that the work gets done. But if José says "I'm more than willing to
> let you help out, but I still want to work on it", then that should be
> respected; this is how it's always done in Debian.
I have made it clear to everyone -- him included -- that I would be
happy to receive patches. I will, however, be sure to review them
before applying them.
> Of course, if I misunderstood something, or you have some compelling
> reason to block José from cooperating that you haven't talked about yet,
> I'm happy to be enlightened.
The most compelling reason:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=jltallon@adv-solutions.net;arch=source
Please note that the pending upload bugs on that page are ones that are
fixed in my NMU.
There are all sorts of other long-term blatant problems with Bacula that
weren't reported to the BTS. His AM had already mentioned quite a few
to him back in February. I don't believe jltallon is yet suited to
maintain a package of this complexity.
-- John
Reply to: