Re: [email@example.com: Request to be approved as FTP-Master]
Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> martin f krafft wrote:
>> also sprach Martin Schulze <email@example.com> [2006.03.08.0853 +0100]:
>> > This has been rejected by James Troup.
>> What was the reason?
> No reason given.
Err, I don't think that's fair. Here's the relevant portion of my email:
| > I hereby request to be approved as FTP-master with proper permissions
| > in order to be able to fully prepare and release stable updates. My
| > plan is to only touch stable update stuff and not work on any other
| > corner of ftpmastership.
| Sorry, but, no.
| The problem with the current point release is sudo. If you want the
| point release to happen, please work with the sudo maintainer or
| convince someone to work with the sudo maintainer to get the package
| into a state where he is happy for it to be released.
The implication is that the reason for turning down the request was
that the point release was not being blocked by lack of an available
ftp-master, so making Joey one seemed orthogonal to the actual goal of
getting the next point release out.
If that wasn't clear, I apologise.
I should also mention that it became clear later in the same mail
conversation/thread that Joey wasn't aware that sudo was the blocker.
I had gotten the impression (or misapprehension, perhaps) from talking
to Bdale that the security team were aware of its problems and they
were actively discussing solutions. I also thought a couple of us had
pinged either Bdale or the security team (or both) about this issue
before now. And of course, there's the pile of critical bugs open on
sudo about the issue. But I never personally replied to Joey's mail
about the next point release explicitly saying that fixing sudo was a
pre-depends, and I apologise for that.