Re: Reforming the NM process
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We'll never tell that! We just tell "we trust you to maintain <x>
> > according to our standards but since you didn't went (yet) through
> > full NM, we don't trust you on working on anything you'd want".
> Err, I am not sure we do say that. Seems to me that the fact
Well, we would tell that if we implemented the idea of aj to give limited
upload rights to some people. (My sentence was implicitely conditional)
> the packages need be checked by a sponsor means we say we are not
> quite sure you can package things to our standards yet, but we
> applaud that you are trying to learn, so here is an experienced
> person to help to reach that level of skill.
Yeah but after 3-4 uploads a new package has usually reached a level of
quality where the sponsorship doesn't bring mean much more and is more of
a burden than a really useful check.
So what else (apart from the work of creating the package) do we want from
the maintainer before we grant him upload rights limited to the package he
created / took over?
> not sure if this discussion is going anywhere
Me neither ... the interesting thing to discuss is what we want to check
before we grant those limited rights and not what we're discussing right
now. Bernhard seems to ignore the problems of the NM system that are
acknowledged by almost everybody.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :