[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
maintainership?

> 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: