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

Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEARteam

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:15:47PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > Especially do I fail to understand why a member of the TC, who took part
> > in such discussions before
> > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00457.html to name an
> > example), and encouraged people to do so (that is how I understand the
> > mentioned mail),
> So to be clear, no, I was not endorsing a hijacking of that package.  My

> The bacula package *was* in bad shape at that time, and something needed to
> be done.  That doesn't mean the particular "something" that was done -
> starting a painful flamewar on debian-devel that led to the previous
> maintainer deciding to walk away from the package (i.e., voluntarily
> orphaning it after being demotivated) was the right thing to do.  However,
> since the maintainer did walk away voluntarily, the TC didn't really have
> grounds to intervene... and probably wouldn't have sided with him anyway, so
> probably wouldn't have been less painful.

I don't think the outcome can be accurately described as "voluntarily
orphaning it after being demotivated". He didn't really orphan it; he
only gave up trying to get it back after it had already been hijacked
and he could not find sponsors to upload his competing version.

> Many of the earlier "hijack" mails on debian-devel also followed a very
> different process than the one described in the present thread (e.g.,
> allowing an indeterminate amount of "time", resulting in the original
> maintainer resuming maintenance of the package -
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2006/09/msg00071.html); or resulted

The linked-to mail does not show such a resolution; changelog shows that
the original maintainer made one more upload, there was one NMU, and
then the would-be hijacker took over the package anyway.

> in amicable resolutions, with the previous maintainer explicitly approving
> the hijacking (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/05/msg00183.html);
> or were intercepted by someone in the know, who diverted the hijack to an
> NMU (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00568.html).
> Unfortunately, it seems this has served as precedent, and the message people
> have taken away is that it's perfectly ok to hijack packages... when almost
> none of the "hijacking" statements have ever resulted in anything of the
> sort.

In 3 of those 4 cases the maintainer did change. I think making extra
bureaucracy a hard requirement would likely have a negative total
effect, due to some desirable takeovers like the Bacula one not
happening at all as a result.

> > is now on a killing spree.  All he is doing is to encourage people to give
> > up their idea to improve Debian.
> From hijacks to killing sprees...  yes, I definitely think there's a
> language barrier of some kind here. ;)

You seem to think it's a contradiction to both use a term with negative
connotations such as "hijack" to describe an action and to say that the
action is the right thing to do. I don't consider it contradictory. The
word "hijack" acknowledges that it is a controversial action, one which
you should expect to defend, and which perhaps wouldn't be required in
an ideal world. But it can still be the best choice in practice.

Reply to: