Re: Co-maintaining Kaffe
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Ean Schuessler wrote:
That said, I must protest whole-heartedly with the way you are
dealing with me as the maintainer of Kaffe. Performing an NMU that
adds yourself as an Uploader and uses a non-NMU version number is
gross breach of protocol.
I have talked to Arnaud about the Kaffe package at FOSDEM and it was
in fact me who suggested to do an upload this way. We all read your
mail were you stated that Arnaud and Ben would be good co-maintainers
and after he told me that you did not respond since that mail (it's
been over 5 weeks at the FOSDEM weekend) adding himself to Uploaders:
is IMHO the natural way to proceed.
I'm not a DD, but I have to ask why a DD would recommend this course?
You either aren't the maintainer, in which case you do NMUs (which Ean
doesn't seem to be strenuously objecting to), or you're a
maintainer/co-maintainer/authorized person, in which case you add
yourself to Uploaders: and presumably coordinate your efforts with others.
I'm all for an improved Kaffe, but I would think one either a) NMUs the
updates, b) makes arrangements with the listed maintainer to be a
co-maintainer, or c) announces their intent to hijack the package, and
after the appropriate amount of time, does so.
Clearly from your email you think Arnaud should be the/a maintainer of
Kaffe. I'm not arguing that point, I just think to make that happen you
need to follow b or c from above, not just make it happen and see if
anyone notices.
Bob
Reply to: