[Okay, seems like discussions are also not appreciated on this list.
It's sad to see that this list is moving into the same direction of
debian-devel. But since this seems to happen, I'm also now stopping to
post anything here anymore and even reconsider my position about QA.]
On 18/10/01, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:26:06PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > On 18/10/01, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Are you willing to maintain it,
> > No, since I'm currently happy with the number of packages that I
> > maintain. Also I'm tracking the OpenSSH development and so far it worked
> > for me, so that I don't have a need to use ssh2.
> > > or at least make it suitable for release?
> > Is that the new way of threading people who speak up against a removal
> > request for a package?
> Show me the threat.
Pardon, telling someone who speaks up against a removal for either
maintainig the package or at "least make it suitable for release" is a
kind of threading people to shup up.
> Otherwise, please calm down and stop being a twit.
Oh, and a insult. Nice way of to stop a discussion.
> Two of the RC bugs in ssh2 have been open for more than a year, causing
> it not to have been included in potato, and no-one seems to have cared
> enough so far.
And since nobody worked during that time on the package, I'm now
attacked because of the removal?
> A package can be as worthy as it likes, but *somebody* has to want to
> maintain the thing. QA maintenance, while certainly better than the
> situation before the QA Group existed, is almost by definition not
> acceptable for a package in the long term. If it is, then there's no
> real reason to have normal maintainers at all.
And that's why I once suggested that orphaned packages are maintained by
a seperate group, who has enough man-power do this and have the QA group
focus on QA issues.
> > Also why did you ignore my hint in which case a removal maybe
> > acceptable?
> I didn't. I was talking about the case in which the openssh maintainer
> reckons that there's a good reason to keep ssh2. In that case it needs a
> maintainer.
And then it's inappropriate or impossible for you to ask on debian-devel
with a broad audience for someone to become the maintainer of the
package, because it's needed?
> > > We're only contemplating its removal because it's orphaned and buggy.
> > Oh, so because it's orphaned we shall remove it? Great, when do you ask
> > to remove more packages from this list `grep-available -FMaintainer
> > -sPackage packages@qa.debian.org` which contains 225 packages with the
> > same reason? And yes, I'm pretty sure that some packages in that list
> > have also bugs and can therefor be called buggy, so that you reason for
> > removal is also fulfilled by them. So I plan to see more removal request
> > from you for packages which match the criteria that you defined above.
> > Otherwise this looks for me like someone seeking an very simple and easy
> > solution for handling release-critical bugs in packages maintained by
> > the members of this list.
> I look forward to seeing your proposed modifications to
> http://qa.debian.org/documentation/qa.html/ch-rules.html which modify
> the text that says that, after one month in which nobody has volunteered
Sorry, but that's a proposal only which was never accepted as standard
document outlining the actions of the QA Group. This document has
therefor exactly 0 importance for any decision that is made here, until
it's official accepted and the status changed.
> unstable distribution". I'm absolutely certain that a package which
> hasn't had a maintainer upload since February 2000 and which has RC bugs
> over a year old is well outside the limits where that document says
According to the last mail to debian-devel-announce the package is
exactly a 133 days orphaned, which is not nearly a year. So instead of
complaining now here about the lousy maintenance of the package, you
should instead complain about the one who either forgot to orphan it
correctly or about the maintainer who didn't work carefully on his
package till he really orphaned it.
> prompt somebody to step up to maintain it, so even the last resort (c)
> can be useful.) I won't be the first. Do you think that leaving crappy
> packages around increases the quality of Debian?
No, but that's why on the one hand i proposed to have a seperate group
taking care of all orphaned packages and on the other hand have the QA
group work on all those crappy or buggy packages which are maintained.
And considering a package which hasn't been orphaned for a year, but
hadn't worked on for more time by the maintainer as it seems, but has
bugs, for removal, especially if it's a bit more useful then some
orphaned games, is appropriate?
> Now, I suppose I've just bitten down hard on your attempt to start a
> flamewar.
This wasn't meant as a flamewar, but instead as showing my opinion.
Since controvery statements are not appreciated according to the
comments on my mail, I'm refusing to post anymore. This will be the last
mail here and I stop it now. [1]
> I apologize to the rest of the list. Can we get back to fixing
> packages now?
Maybe you or other people get back to that, but I'm really reconsidering
doing something in that area anymore.
Christian
[1] Let's see which list @l.d.o will be the next one.
--
Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgpFoLmsQkuE5.pgp
Description: PGP signature