Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you're unhappy that the package has been unmaintained for a long time and
> that the MIA process takes time to result in an orphaning... suck it up. If
> it was actually a problem, someone would have noticed it earlier and done
> something about it. An unmaintained package does not suddenly become an
> urgent matter for the project the moment another DD notices it, and there is
> *no* justification for bypassing our agreed-upon community processes for how
> unmaintained packages are handled.
> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
> they are not answerable to the project's processes for how package
> maintenance is decided. It is antisocial vigilanteism and it is not
Why are people talking about urgency and hijack? None applies to this
Please refer to the title of this thread, where I wrote:
Orphaning *THEN* take over
Is there anything wrong with that?
Please re-read my first post of this thread.
Did you see me writing "I'd like to hijack php-codesniffer in order to rush
and get it into wheezy in time before the freeze"? *NO* ! I didn't write
That's not my intention, especially that this is a tool aimed at developers,
so it doesn't really mater if it's not in Wheezy (it'd be nicer, but it's ok
if it's not).
In fact, it's the total opposite way, I asked others if they found it ok to
ask for the package to be orphaned after only a week, because I thought that
4 years without a refresh of the package, multiple NMUs of other packages
from the same maintainer, was enough to shorten the "ping period". I also
wrote about my intention to get the original maintainer in the team if he
wishes so. Then considering Jonas opinion, I agreed to leave one week more,
even if I know that the orphaning process may take some time as well.
Is this hijack? Is this rushing?