Re: Quality Assurance Group mini-policy
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:30:56 -0500, Chris Lawrence <quango@watervalley.net> said:
Chris> On Jun 07, Christian Kurz wrote:
>> (Responding to my proposal:)
>> > ``However, if QA Group members make 3 consecutive bugfix
>> > uploads, with no action on the part of the maintainer, the
>> > package will be marked as orphaned 60 days after the first QA
>> > Group bugfix upload, and the 'Maintainer' field of the package
>> > will be set to "Debian QA Group <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>".''
>>
>> Thanks, this is a very good and IMHO better than the old one. So I
>> would recommend using this one instead of the old one. This also
>> makes sure that we don't have to many packages where the
>> maintainer is MIA but also we don't thread the developers to much
>> to work on their packages.
Chris> Looking over that paragraph again, I guess it's implied that
Chris> if bugfix upload #3 is more than 60 days after bugfix upload
Chris> #1, and there has been no intervening action on the part of
Chris> the maintainer, it can be orphaned in bugfix upload #3. So
Chris> the 60 days is a minimum time period. I guess that makes it
Chris> more like:
Chris> ``However, if QA Group members make 3 consecutive bugfix
Chris> uploads, and the maintainer does not respond with a maintainer
Chris> release incorporating the fixes within 60 days of the first QA
Chris> Group upload, the package will be marked as orphaned and the
Chris> 'Maintainer' field of the package will be set to "Debian QA
Chris> Group <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>".''
Remove the "incorporating the fixes" part. The maintainer
theoretically should be more familiar with his/her packages and
shouldn't be required to include fixes from the QA group that are the
wrong thing.
Dres
--
@James LewisMoss <dres@ioa.com> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
Reply to: