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

Re: package ownership in Debian

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:11:03 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> said: 

> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:
>> > If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off
>> > my package", I'd do it here instead.
>> I've been thinking about this a lot for the past week.
>> Is there any way this could be changed?

> Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership.  Make
> it 100% mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at
> first.

        Err, I am not sure co-maintaining packages actually
 unequivocally improves packaging quality or response times. There are
 teams that work well for a packagfe, and then there are packages
 where  team maintainence has not worked out.

> Co-maintainers are much closer to what is being done in a package
> than joe-random developer.  Also, co-maintainership is far less
> prone to fire-and-forget uploads that hose things, and are nicer to
> people who feel very strongly about their packages.

        Co-maintainerships require communication, and ability and
 desire to share decisions, can result in  a culture of "it is someone
 elses problem (neat aphorism in german, I believe)", and if the team
 does not trust one of the members, then things can turn ugly.

        Sometimes, too many cooks do indeed spoil the broth.

> IMO, if we could reach a better level of resilience, lower response
> times, and agility with co-maintainership, it would be better than
> going to the extreme Ubuntu did.

        I am not yet convinced that that is the case universally,
 especially if you force people to work in teams.


Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines? George Carlin
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: