Re: Intent to hijack Bacula
David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 09:30:40PM +0200, Roberto Lumbreras wrote:
>
>> 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 :-(
>>
>
> John has managed to not only update to the latest upstream version in his
> upload, but he's also managed to fix 24 bugs by my count. It is notable
> that he has managed to achieve so much while Jose struggled just to update
> to the new version.
>
I have been away from home for 20 months; During the latest 3 I have had
random hardware errors which I couldn't fix.
I have myself fixed in excess of 40 bugs in my packages in the last 48h,
when I have been back to speed.
So what???
> Since John has said he's open to having an alioth group maintain bacula,
> with Jose on the team,
Hmm.. he chose to hijack my package instead.
That is *not* collaborative maintenance.
> I hope Jose chooses to actively work with everyone to get the help, and apparently training, that he needs to manage something
> this complicated.
Sorry, but I fail to see how well you know my work for Debian (three
years so far) in order to be able to judge me.
Please check your facts before joining a thread this harsh.
> I got tons of help from people both in and out of Debian
> while working on Xorg, and I still get it almost daily. There's no shame in
> doing so, and Jose should take advantage of it to become a stronger
> maintainer.
>
Correct. That's why I appreciate patches (and even NMUs). This is
completely different.
Hijacking a package without contacting the maintainer first is against
the Developers' Reference and can only be considered a personal attack.
I still don't know what is John Goerzen trying to achieve with this.
More on this later.
J.L.
Reply to: