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

Re: what about an special QA package priority?

On Fri, 23 May 2008, Luciano Bello wrote:
> 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.

If there aren't enough people who are interested in maintaining
packages which are not currently team-maintained packages to make them
team maintained, requiring them to be team maintained isn't going to
do anything.

Are there any packages which aren't team-maintained which have
maintainers in the wings who have already contributed to development
of the package where the original maintainer hasn't considered team

> 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.

We've learned lessons that we already knew: reviewing patches and
working to minimize diffs between upstream is good. However, blocking
Debian development on upstream or reviewers isn't the way to magically
get more people to review Debian-specific patches.

We need the people who are doing the review and have continuously
committed to doing the review before we block on the review.

Don Armstrong

He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them
neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a
lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and
the chuck keys for electric drills.
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: