On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 12:35, Martin Baehr wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:40:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote: > > It turned out he agreed to omit the debian tree from his tarballs at my > > request, but I also suggested he could just rename the directory to > > debian_sample. In this way there would be no interference with my work, > > and he could keep debian_sample loosely synchronized as he saw fit. > > i don't see the need for this seperation. > it suggests that debian maintainer and upstream should not work in > unison, but keep their work seperate. why is that? > I was wondering why this is not the default and desired situation too. I would have thought that getting the upstream developers to do most of the work (if possible) would be ideal as they are the most interested in making sure their system works. I'm sort of running into this as I have started to update the twiki package to the Feb2003 release, and in the process found that there were a number of trivial bugs reported in BTS that had not been pushed back to the upstream effort at all. They were all fixed within days of my notifying the upstream dev's. please consider what can be done to optimize the package maintenece system's use of non-debian developers.. note: I have been using debian for all of 4 weeks now - so i have not read enough to know what has been done :) -- Sven Dowideit <svenud@ozemail.com.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part