Re: Intent to hijack Bacula
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 08:37:35AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
: * Roberto Lumbreras (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: > Speaking about your mail, I think it's your opinion, mine is different.
: Sure, but you're looking through some very rosy glasses.
hey, I've tried to be fair...
: > Jose Luis doesn't want just his name in some place, he has worked a lot
: > in bacula in the past, and I don't know why he can't remain as
: > maintainer or co-maitainer if he is going to work on it again.
: You don't get to rest on your laurels in Debian. Especially when it's
: been over a year.
don't be so rude with Jose Luis, and it's not him the only person to
blame, he is not the only person who can do an upload of a package (in
fact, he can't)
: > Obviuosly if he is unable to maitain it or work on it, it should orphan
: > the package, but it seems that things are different.
: That would be exactly the problem- he wants to remain as maintainer or
: co-maintainer yet has shown nothing to indicate that he's going to work
: on it again. Not only that but he's trying to refuse work done by others
: (John) which is clearly in the best interest of Debian and its users
: (like, I dunno, getting bacula into a state where it can get back into
He has packaged the last version of bacula, and it is not uploaded
because it's not ready, then a new version was showed up... he has a
personal apt repository that users from bacula mailing list uses, and
packages (not yet finished) in sourceforge... so is it clear for you
that he is not going to work on it again? not for me, I think he was
working, then the John started to do NMUs, and refusing to be
co-maintainer with Jose Luis. After John has refused to do that, then
Jose Luis has done the same. I think it's a kids game :-(
: Besides, Jose Luis will still be able to help with bacula, if he really
: wants to, by doing bug triage, submitting patches, etc. I fully agree
: with John's statement though- based on the state which bacula was in and
: the things which were done in it that were *clearly* policy violations,
: Jose Luis' contributions need to be checked before being committed.
: This is something that anyone sponsoring anyone's packages *should* have
: been doing already. Unfortunately, that part seems to have been
: forgotten by some.
Hey, again, don't be so rude... some of those serious policy violations
are things like mistakes erasing logfiles and editing conffiles that
couldn't be done in another way. I don't even remember if it was me who
uploaded that version of bacula doing so evil things... but if it was me
a year ago, it was because another version was supposed to come soon
fixing that and then it didn't happen. And I've worked tons of hours
even days reviewing Jose Luis packages, maybe I'm not god but please
don't say things so easily.
Roberto Lumbreras .''`.
<rover : :' : debian.org>
Debian Developer `. `'