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
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.