Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
Michael Gilbert <email@example.com> writes:
> Not if the nmu has a sufficient delay (DELAYED/10 or DELAYED/30 or
> whatever would be agreed on). The maintainer can cancel things that he
> doesn't like before they get uploaded.
You're still making the maintainer take explicit action to stop something
that he already said they didn't want to happen. I don't see why you
think this is going to make anything better. I believe nearly everyone is
going to react badly, and possibly strongly, to that sort of action.
That's just how humans work.
> We should try to get out of the way of capable people trying to make
> things better.
If we do that by letting people take passive-aggressive action against
other maintainers, we're going to create a social problem that's much
worse than the problem of some technical issues going unaddressed.
If we want to treat packages as more group-maintained than maintained by
individuals (and there are valid arguments in favor of moving in that
direction), we should do that explicitly and with some thought and
discussion. That's not what NMUs are for, nor is it something that we
should be doing in passive-aggressive ways.
If that's what we are going to do, we should do it openly and clearly and
with the proper technical support (such as, for example, pushing the
package into a shared VCS so that the person making the changes can
incorporate them into the same packaging that the maintainer will be using
for the next maintainer upload).
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>