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

Re: Forwarding bugs upstream

Hi, Peter:

On Friday 14 January 2011 10:29:57 Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Jesús M. Navarro]
> > If any, bugs you (properly) pass to the upstream developer are bugs
> > that will cost you not a dime of your valuable time from them on.
> You didn't read the rest of the thread, did you?

Yes I did.  And I stay with what I said.  It seems that passing info around is 
wasting the maintainer's time because (so I assume, since there's no 
indication implying otherwise) he is just acting as a man-in-the-middle.  
Once he is able to reproduce the bug himself then he is not acting as the 
maintainer in front of the upstream developer but as end user with a bug in 
his hands.  If that's not the case, well, I already stated what should be 
done (basically, close the bug as "non reproducible here").  You did read the 
rest of the thread, did you?

> > If you understand what I said, good; if you didn't, please, make me
> > the honour of considering me as an authority and act accordingly
> No.


> > If you don't like our parties, you are free not to come here.  In
> > other words: if you find Bacula to be too hard a package to deal with
> > you are free to orphan it.
> Why is it that none of the people who keep calling for everyone to
> orphan their packages because they're not taking on enough of what a
> maintainer is supposed to do, seem to be stepping up to maintain,
> co-maintain, or otherwise help out with these packages that are
> apparently so poorly maintained?

Because, for whatever reason, they (me) are not debian developers, therefore 
they didn't make their issue to maintain, co-maintain or otherwise help out 
with these packages.  Those opting to be or in fact being debian developers 
do it.

That said, asking for help prior to orphan a package its maintainer is not up 
to properly cope with by himself is certainly a valuable option.


Reply to: