Re: package ownership in Debian
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:09:06 +0000, Gustavo Franco <gustavorfranco@gmail.com> said:
> On 7/29/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> If the person is sane and has a package that needs more help, the
>> person get co-maintainers. ANd even then, sometimes, adding
>> maintainers does not reduce the laod on the primary. This is also
>> from experience.
> Speak by yourself.
How is saying "This is also from experience" not speaking for
myself? Who else, do you think, I am speaking for? Are you
insisting every statement have a codicil attached stating on whose
behalf one is speaking? Were you, for instance, speaking for yourself
when you so imperatively demanded I speak for myself?
>> > You wrote that there are teams that work well for a package, and
>> > then there are packages where team maintenance has not worked
>> > out. These packages where team maintenance has not worked out
>> > were well maintained by one person before or what? If not, i
>> > disagree.
>>
>> Yes, and in a recent case, that single maintainer was thinking of
>> taking the package back, in order to improve maintainance.
> Well, wasn't he in that group?
Right, and he stated that the team thing wasn't working, and
he is thinking of taking the package back
>> > I think the debian-installer guys can tell you otherwhise.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha. I can only suspect you do not have access to -private.
> You know i've. AFAIK, d-i is going well, even with all the problems,
> i can tell you about Debian Python Modules Team
The Python modules core? Are they in charge of the new python
policy?
> but you would say "it isn't core, i don't care, yadda, yadda,
Ah. So now you are speaking for me? Talk about hypocrisy :).
> ...". Do you see d-i as a project where Joey or Frans do everything
> almost alone and others just send patches using the BTS ?
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> > Hello, i thought Debian project was a big team. If people here
>> > don't want to work in a team, we're going nowhere.
Debian is a collection of like minded "INDIVIDUALS" working on
a common cause, and sharing ther work. Usually, this has been done by
handing out packages to people, with a technical policy so that
packges may integrate into the system. Nowehere was it assumed that
it was one happy giant team sharing decisions, and diluting
responsibility.
So no, Debian has never been the giant dysfunctional team that
you state (and you need only look at the mailing lists to see exactly
how dysfunctional we are as one big happy team).
>> > I think that force is the wrong term, we should encourage and in
>> > some cases require to avoid single point of failure, IMHO.
>>
>> There is no difference between requiring a team and forcing a team
>> on people. And that does not work.
> That's great how you ignored my answer for your first comment, but
> ok. There's a big difference in Manoj maintaining his package foo
> and Gustavo maintaining glibc alone, do you see?
Well, apart from relative competence of the two people named,
and ability to handle the packages, I would see no diffference. One
needs to know ones own limitations.
manoj
--
I'm having a BIG BANG THEORY!!
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: