Re: Intent to hijack Bacula
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:37:34PM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> >> 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
> The package itself is a bit more than two years old.
> Most of your concerns are with PostgreSQL-related code, which is much
> newer (first introduced w/ Bacula-1.36)
According to the changelog, you first released the PostgreSQL support in
August 2004 in 1.34.5-1.
But no, it is not accurate to say most of my concerns relate to
PostgreSQL.
> > There are all sorts of other long-term blatant problems with Bacula that
> > weren't reported to the BTS.
> Then go ahead and report them yourself. That's what the BTS is for.
I have already uploaded fixes. Why bother with that?
> ... and attaching patches for NMUs once (or even before) they are
> uploaded, according to the Policy.
> Again, where are they? I had to ask for the diff corresponding to
> 1.38.8-0.1, but haven't received the patches for the following three
> uploads.
I had every reason to believe that there were more bugs that could be
fixed prior to the uploaded packages exiting NEW. I turned out to be
correct. I planned all along to open a new bug with the full diff once
I had completed the NMU activities, as suggested by the developer's
reference. NMU procedures are not mentioned in the Debian Policy.
Posting an individual patch to 22 bugs, some of which had
interdependencies, would have been incredibly annoying for both of us.
You asked me very soon after I made the first upload, and I was happy to
send you the diff with the patches accumulated to date. You would have
received it before long anyway -- a few hours later.
> > His AM had already mentioned quite a few to him back in February.
> Yes. The ones relating to static linking I have already solved for a
> long time.
No, you have not. Your last upload to Debian was almost a year ago, and
did not solve that.
As long as you did not upload a fix to Debian, it is not fixed as far as
Debian is concerned. A fix in some off-Debian source tree somewhere
does nothing to get Bacula in etch, and more importantly, does nothing
to make it work for Debian users. Your fix also didn't work.
> The ones related to PgSQL... still didn't have the knowledge nor the
> time needed
That is irrelevant. It is your responsibility. If you don't have the
capability to maintain the package for these reasons, you should have
orphaned it long ago.
> > I don't believe jltallon is yet suited to maintain a package of this complexity.
> >
> Well... at least this means I am not completely incompetent as a
> maintainer...
> You have just conceded that this package is tremendously complex. Thanks.
I made no statement about the package being tremendously complex or not.
I, in fact, don't believe it is. It's about moderate complexity.
Certainly nothing on the order of X, libc, kernels, TeX, etc.
I also did not say that you are completely incompetant as a maintainer.
I just said that the complexity of *THIS* package seems to exceed your
*PRESENT* abilities as a maintainer. (Notice the word "YET" above).
> (and, before you say it, I will: just watch out for uploads in my name.
> This time I have the means )
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Reply to: