On 00-12-03 Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org> [20001203 14:24]:
> > > The Build-Depends: I didn't count but I guess about 80 - 90% get
> >
> > Also I wonder how you can guess that the number is so high? I think
> > it would be only about 10-20& judging from looking at the bug
> > reports.
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. 80-90% of my NM applicants get it work.
Ah, this change the intention of your statement.
> > In my opinion it's not the job of the application manager to fix
> > packages.
> I don't fix his package. I tell him about errors, explain them and
> have him fix it.
Well, I'm still not sure, if this work should really be done by the AMs
or if we shouldn't use sponsorship for this task.
> > If a new maintainer has no sponsor, he should first get one
> > assigned, who will guide him and check the packages. After he passed
> > this test, he should be processed by the NMs and not earlier.
> That's ok for me. Talk to the guys responsible for the NM process and
> change it -- but please make sure you have enough sponsors.
Well, I think that there are enough people to sponsor NMs. I currently
fail to see that we are missing enough sponsors.
> > What do you want to state with this sentence? You forgot that it's
> > easier to send a mail to an experined developer telling him his package
> > has wrong build-dependency then sending such a mail to a new maintainer.
> I don't believe this. An experienced developer is more likely to
> ignore you than a NM because he is 'experienced' anyway and the NM
> knows he has still much to learn. (Yes, I have experienced exactly
Well, you assume that the NM is willing to still learn things and be
very active about his package. I think this is not always the fact.
> this when telling people about using the new WNPP. The new developers
> appreciate your help, the existing developers ignore you).
Hm, I had only some developers ignore some mails to them, but that have
been developers that I think are inactive for now a lot of time.
> > Did you ever take a look how much stuff Adrian is doing for debian
> > and qa in debian? If not, I would suggest that you first examine
> > this
> I know what Adrian does, and I ADORE him for his work. I think Adrian
> is one of the best guys in Debian, and I feel really bad about him
> leaving the QA group. And I do think he has a point, but what he
> wants is not possible in the current framework (ie it's not the job of
> an AM to sponsor a application).
I would say that you are wrong here. He just wants the AMs to be more
strict about the task&skill check of new applicants then currently. And
if I look at your report of the xgospel-Maintainer I agree with him,
that this part of the test should be stricter, then you are currently
handling it. It's nice to read that you do a big philosophy test, but we
also need well skilled people that can build high quality packages and
not only people with a good philosophy.
> > before blaming him for such small bug.
> Ah, here the Build-Depends is a "small bug" but in the case of my
> applicant, it's serious... The build dependency problem in "patch"
It's small compared to the lot of time he spents on working on his
debian packages and fixing other bug packages. You can't only look at
the bug reports of people and judge them. You also should take a look at
how much they contributed already to debian.
> was a serious problem for ME when I tried to make a hierarchy of
> build dependencies, and that's why I filed a bug.
And why he hopefully fixed it soon.
> > > uploading my package" which I proposed earlier in this thread (and to
> >
> > This is not needed since there's lintian and a lot of sponsors who can
> > check the rest of the package for bugs, that lintian won't catch.
> There IS lintian. But please explain why most of the packages I
> receive from appliants are not lintian clean. I don't think they are
Because to many people don't know about lintian and it's package tests.
I think we need to make this tool more popular as it's really helpful.
Maybe we could add such a test to the task&skill-part? Dale, what do you
think?
Ciao
Christian
--
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgppFzfbwuVLt.pgp
Description: PGP signature