On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:53:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Maintainers: > ------------ > How much work is expected from the maintainers? Can we refrain from formalising this too much? Personally, I quite like the way this works at the moment -- if there's a buggy package that you can fix, you can send a patch to the maintainer who'll get around to it when s/he feels like, or you can ask if the maintainer minds if you do an NMU. I've fixed a few bugs like this, and one of these has always worked. I just don't like having some metric by which we can decide that some maintainers are doing their job or not: it's not a job in the first place. > . Email the QDAG if they 'give up' on a bug. Having a list of bugs that need fixing would be nifty; but it doesn't seem particularly helpful: almost all the bugs older than about a month have probably been more or less given up on, and their easy to find out by subscribing to -bug-reports. And I doubt too many people would mind having fixes to bugs forwarded to them while they're still working on them either, so I don't see that as much of an issue. > DQAG Evolution: > --------------- > Scan the bug tracking system for bugs older than 3 months that are > fixable and provide patches to the debian maintainers (and > eventually also to the upstream maintainers). Older than two years is enough of a stress at the moment. :) See http://master.debian.org/~ajt/oldbugs.txt Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: PGP signature