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

Re: what about an special QA package priority?

El Vie 23 May 2008, Don Armstrong escribió:
> >  - It should maintained by a team
> Team maintenance doesn't automatically make a package better.[1]
> Furthermore, I don't believe there are many (possibly any!) packages
> in Debian where the package is "important" and the current maintainer
> wouldn't accept help. [And if there are, that's a problem which we can
> deal with on a case-by-case basis.]

Is not about accept help. It about considering the package as unmaintained if 
there is not a team to maintain it. In same packages, we can not depend on 
only two pairs of eyes.

> >  - Its patches should be sign-off by reviewers (Raphael Hertzog
> > (hertzog@) proposed something like this)
> There isn't enough manpower to do this. While more review is good,
> blocking development and bug fixing to wait on review is just not
> sustainable and scalable. [It's not like it's hard for people to
> interdiff diff.gz's now and see what has changed in each patch; only a
> few people not directly involved with the package appear to be doing
> this.]

Of course at first is not easy. But we should go to an scenario where all the 
local patches was reported to upstream (to apply them in the next release) or 
be justified by more than one developer. 

I'm just saying the platitude. We need to improve our process. We must learn 
something from the Debian/OpenSSL debacle.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: