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

Bug#1052015: RFS: blktrace/1.3.0-1 -- utilities for block layer IO tracing



Hi Daichi,

On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 04:08:26PM +0900, Daichi Fukui wrote:
> > Daichi, I'd be happy to sponsor this upload in principle (once it passes
> > review) but only if you're interested in taking care of blktrace going
> > forward.
>
> Yes, I'm interested in taking care of blktrace and have a plan to address
> a different issue, that is #1069862.  I appreciate it if you could
> sponsor this upload.
> 
> > Firstly, apologies Daichi, if you wish adopt this package and maintain
> > it moving forward, like Daniel, I would be happy to assist and support
> > you as needed if requested.
>
> Yes, I would like to adopt the blktrace package and hopefully get
> assistance for that if you don't mind.

Alright. If you want to adopt it we should fixup the maintainer/uploader
metadata. Since bas agreed to the takeover you can just go ahead and
implement it yourself in d/control. Whether to leave Dmitry in Uploaders
(which would represent co-maintanance) is your call as maintainer now.

Overall you can basically choose one of the following maintanance
approaches:

  1) Be responsible for dealing with everything yourself. You are in
     Maintainers and there's no Uploaders,
  2) Have a select set of people (maint+uploaders) be collectively
     responsible or
  3) Collaborative maintainance across all of Debian. i.e. anyone can
     upload (we call this NMU) at will. You'd add yourself to the
     [LowThresholdNmu] list in that case

[LowThresholdNmu]: https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu

Currently blktrace is packaged in git using the "only debian/ dir in git"
approach https://salsa.debian.org/debian/blktrace. Personally I don't like
that workflow and would strongly prefer switching to something else as it
also impacts my sponsorship/review work. Do you have any preference among
the git workflows in Debian? .. yet ;-)

> In addition, I've updated the draft package as follows, following your
> review for improvement.

Hold off on uploading a new package to mentors with the metadata changes, I
don't have the focus right now but I'm sure to have more review comments
once I get around to it ;)

Feel free to poke and prod if I don't get my keyboard in gear.

--Daniel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: