Re: Debian Science taking over cimg-dev?
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:23:46PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> No, we all now that you prefer hijacks into debian-science over NMUs,
If you define a serious offer of group maintenance as hijack, then yes.
> the common and correct behaviour (even to increase pressure on the
> maintainer(s) of a package).
The maintainer were not pressed by long standing bugs and you call the
offer for group maintenance increased pressure?
> > I waitet
> > for confirmation to take over the package, which IMHO should give the
> > maintainers some time to react.
>
> We have NMU queues for this type of situation.
No. We have NMU queues for situations were maintainers are temporary
absent but actually intend to continue maintenance. IMHO the situation
was different in the case of cimg.
> It would show a much
> better light on your intentions, if you would use them instead to try to
> grab more and more packages into your hands. I wonder if you really have
> the necessary time to handle them.
Reading this lets me wonder whether you are really understanding my
intention. I'm not Debian Science in person. I try to work on a strong
team. If you wonder whether I can handle such a lot of packages I can
answer: no, I can't and I do not intend to. But I spended some time in
QA tools for Blends which enabled me to have a lot of packages in focus
and I can step in where work is needed. You might like to check out my
commits in Debian Med last month. Cimg-dev is in the focus of Debian
Med and if I would be able to commit some time to this package if it
needs work I would do if I would not be forced to join another team.
This is what would spoil my time scale.
> > I have no idea what you want to tell me. You prepared an NMU in SVN
>
> JFTR: I don't have upload rights for cimg. So checking the build
> (problem) and/or offering to sponsor the upload would have shown your
> *serious" interest in this package. You did neither of both!
Well, I checked the build and it builded fine - so I at least did one of
both - perhaps this makes me half-serious? I do not intend to work on a
lot of NMUs if a package seems orphaned. If a maintainer is unable to
maintain a package he should orphan the package and not force his fellow
maintainers to fix his problem with NMUs. This is a workaround which I
do not like. Others had the chance as well and they did neither. If
there would have been an interest of the maintainers they could have
just uploaded your fixed package.
> > and accuses me to not have uploaded your work?
>
> You said: "that it hurts you so much". So again: Why then you didn't
> make or upload an NMU (this is the thing I already suggested to you
> "more than 4 months ago")? Why do you insist in hijacking a package,
> where the much easier and common solution to fix long outstanding bugs
> is to prepare/upload an NMU?
That's easy: I'm not seeking for an easy solution which is rather a
workaround but a real solution. Continous NMUs are no solution - at
least I not for me.
> This would have even shown, that you care
> about the package. Instead you didn't care about it nor touch
I have no commit permissions in pkg-scicomp - so I was unable to touch
it.
> it nor did
> you show any other serious sign, that you will really care about this
> package in the future. Instead you insist in hijacking. Do you know what
> a reaction this would provoce on d-devel or d-mentors for a
> newbie-packager? Everybody would say: First show that you can maintain
> this package, then ask for taking it over.
Your arguing is a bit strange. Imagine I would ask pkg-scicomp to enable
me commit permissions and I would have adde myself as Uploader everything
would be fine, right. So please calm down. I do not see the profit
neither for cimg nor for the involved groups if we start a flame about
right or wrong behaviour in this case. As long as non of the maintainers
steps in into this discussion I see a clear prove that their interest is
quite low and moving the package to a different team is not dramatic for
them.
> PS: How does incorporating packages into debian-science increase the
> necessary manpower to maintain them?
Given the fact that we had quite a decrease of lacking behind upstream
and bug count on Debian Med in the last month I would try to have a look
at Debian Science as well what can be done. I admit that my focus is on
Debian Med in the first place. I have no idea why you seem to address
me in person as Debian Science. I try to pass good experiences to other
groups. I realised that a split of maintainer groups is not optimal and
I try to express this here.
> As far as I see, you and debian-science
> have enough open bugs and lack behind the latest upstream
> release in a lot of packages?
I'm not fully clear whom you actually addressing by "you and
debian-science" but in Debian Med we made quite a progress and people
there will probably agree that it is to some extend because of my work
on this. BTW, I did not intended to "hijack" cimg-dev to Debian Med
even if it would be in our interest. I would like to keep it under
a more general umbrella - but I would like to have more influence than
a series of NMUs.
> I would really be interested in the answer.
If your tone stays that agressive not any more but for this time yes.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: