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

Re: Intent to hijack Bacula

Steve Langasek wrote:
> It is the responsibility of a package maintainer to ensure that fixes for
> bugs are uploaded in a timely manner.  If José Luis isn't able to do this,
> because he doesn't have a sponsor or for any other reason, then he is not an
> effective maintainer for the package.
That is another matter, probably. I never claimed that I have been the
best maintainer for this.
> Actually, we've heard in this thread that Stephen (his AM) *did* offer to
> sponsor bacula uploads, and José Luis did not avail himself of this.
When the offer did come, I wasn't able to prepare the upload anyway.
I suspected that Stephen, given the state of things, would be in excess
picky with my packaging.
Moreover, I couldn't trust that he would upload in a timely manner...
>   So
> it's not at all clear to me why you think anyone other than José Luis should
> bear the responsibility of this package not being fixed.
>> 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?
> IME, making plans in Debian based on whether someone else has *promised* to
> do something does not give very good results. 
I can understand this.
>  The bacula packages have been removed from testing *repeatedly* over the past year due to one RC bug or
> another being reported against it; and it seems that the only real movement
> towards getting them fixed has only come in response to John's takeover
> attempt. 
It does happen to be the same time when I am finally home (just returned
from Sweden, where I have been for almost 21 months) and had the
opportunity to work effectively on my packages again.
Unfortunate coincidence, I must admit.
> I can't say that I fault John for wishing to take over this package and fix it.
Thank you for being impartial and acting cool on this, Steve.

However, regular practice for this is to offer help or co-maintainership
(which others did before) and not hijacking the package.
Even when I explicitly denied being willing to give up the package, John
has attempted (and almost succeeded already) hijacking my package. This
is what I don't accept.

I have in the past always accepted patches and included them as soon as
I could.
How is it different this time?

I can feel nervousness due to the upcoming freeze... there is still
almost three months left for the base freeze.
Why shouldn't I be able to fix my packages in a reasonable period of
time (say, before the end of May) now that I am back home? Assuming I
failed, this "super-duper developer", John Goerzen, has proved to be
able to "fix everything" to your liking in a very short amount of time,
and so would be able to have Bacula in Etch in no time.

If grave personal issues are not a valid excuse for not devoting Debian
as much time as I would have liked to in the past months, then most of
the people in this thread shall step out of it and shut up.
I won't point fingers here. You know who you are, and I need not say it.

If that is indeed the case, state it clearly so that all people
approaching Debian will be warned beforehand.
I will also consider whether I am interested in contributing any work to
Debian in that case, too... as will probably most other people.

However, I am amazed about how much attention Bacula has attracted as of
lately... when I first packaged it and began maintaining it almost three
years ago, nobody cared a bit about it. Now that the worst is over and
Bacula is becoming famous, all sorts of people want to have their names
attached to it... I can't hardly be surprised by this.

Note, however, that I have accepted co-maintainership (as long as it is
done on fair terms to me) and have even created an Alioth project for this.



Reply to: