Re: Intent to hijack Bacula
John Goerzen wrote:
> 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 I have not withdrawn my intent to take over Bacula.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
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)
> -- 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.
>
That means a change in maintainership without RFA/O nor MIA status.
>> 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.
>
Not anymore. I have already added some of my own o_O
> 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.
... 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.
Please, will you abide by the Policy before criticizing others'
non-compliance ?
I am still the maintainer, after all...
> 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.
The ones related to PgSQL... still didn't have the knowledge nor the
time needed
> 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'd rather fix bugs than keep discussing. As I said before, I never
liked flamewars
(and, before you say it, I will: just watch out for uploads in my name.
This time I have the means )
J.L.
Reply to: