Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team
On Thursday 31 May 2012 14:43:00 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-05-31 at 08:02pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters
> > > in his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership without the
> > > consent of the former maintainer and outside formal Debian
> > > procedures.
> >
> > Nobody did that, or had the intention to do this here.
> >
> > I already asked you privately: please stop spreading wrong information
> > about my intentions. This begins to be really annoying.
>
> I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
>
> Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
> post was to have the package orphaned and then have a team take over
> maintainance?
>
> Do I understand correctly that your intention in your original post was
> (after having tried to reach the maintainer for 5 days and having
> noticed that others have tried for several years) to have the orphaning
> occur without the consent of the maintainer?
Or you should better understand that "maintainer is always there to provide
consent" is also a blatant assumption, and that some sort of fault-tolerance
is actually needed in the real life, at least in my parallel reality.
Sometimes it is impossible to reach the maintainer for a very long period of
time, due to several even prosaic reasons, hence something or someone should
be able to unblock the hard blockage in a reasonable amount of time.
Maintaining the package in between for a very long amount of time (like
years), by very long series of minimal, non-invasive NMUs, which would also
imply no new upstream versions or newly created packaging tools, seems quite
suboptimal to me. Thus orphan + adopt is perfectly in order.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: