Re: please upload python2.6 to unstable
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 02:37:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Really?
>
> Here are some other words that go hand-in-hand with 'package hijack':
>
> - vigilante
> - antisocial
> - arrogant
> - acrimonious
> - disrespectful
> - demotivating
Are you really sure that these attributes will not fit even more to a
maintainer who ignores his users and fellow maintainers? Again: Telling
a maintainer "We will hijack your package after time x if you will not
tell us to stay away from this." and waiting for the time gives the
maintainer an urgent warning. He can perfectly say: Don't do it and
after this we might consult the TC. Is "telling about an impending
hijack" a problem for you? If the maintainer stays silent also to this
I do not know in how far the attributes above apply to the hijack.
Perhaps my dictionary is broken and I just can not understand the
wording.
> We have consensual processes for taking over unmaintained packages via the
> QA Team, and we have processes of last resort to reasssign packages via the
> Technical Committee if a maintainer is unwilling to give up the package.
But the maintainer did not issued his will about the package - at least
I have not seen any hint.
> There's no excuse for hijacking packages, and it's poisonous to the
> atmosphere of the project.
A hijack is done if a package is uploaded with changed maintainer field.
I was suggesting a warning that this will happen in a determined future
if the maintainer does not insist. That's actually not a hijack but
putting some preasure which is obviosely needed to force some action.
IMHO it is equivalent to bothering the TC but less formal because TC
will be only involved in case the maintainer disagrees and continues to
do a bad job. It might also be that the maintainer understands the
warning.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: