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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you*
> > say.  The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do
> > in this thread.
> They are the ones to tell other people what to do in general. They are
> the ones rejecting new maintainers or new packages for frivolous
> reasons. They are the ones preventing me from working on GNOME 2.14
> because packages are stuck in NEW.

Oh, quit whining already.

First, "the FTP-masters" is not the same group of people as "the DAMs".
There is some overlap, but it is not complete. Ignoring that, I've never
seen the DAM reject new maintainers for "frivolous" reasons. More on
topic, I've also never seen packages rejected because of "frivolous"
reasons. What I have seen is a NEW FAQ which clearly explains the
reasons for which a package might be rejected. None of them seem
frivolous to me; in fact, if it were up to me, I'd be a bit more strict
than what that FAQ seems to suggest.

Second, the NEW queue is indeed a bit backlogged; AIUI, however, that's
mainly because the ftp-masters were at debconf and the Internet
connection there wasn't good enough for interactive traffic, which is
required for ftp-mastery stuff.

Debconf is over now, so I fully expect the NEW queue to be handled again
as good as it used to be in a few weeks. Which would hopefully mean that
emile, a package that I uploaded and which is stuck in NEW as well, will
be accepted into the archive.

> They are generally considering the rest of developers like a boss with
> his employees.

I've never seen any of them ordering me to do something, which is the
essence of an employer/employee-relationship. You must be delusional.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: