Re: package ownership in Debian
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:11:03 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Matthew Garrett <email@example.com>
>> [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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C