[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal - Use Cases

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:03:36PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:58:13PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > Notes: package should generally be co-maintained by sponsor and non-DD
> > >   maintainer, with the non-DD maintainer doing most of the work
> >   If you restrict this use case to that specific case, then you won't
> > have a lot of candidates, or worse fake ones. I co-maintain about ... 0
> > packages I sponsor, and I believe it's often the case.
> I don't really understand that comment -- you at least take a cursory
> glance over every upload you make, presumably recompile the packages, and
> are available to offer help with the package, and you're held ultimately
> responsible by the project for all those uploads -- that seems a lot
> more involvement than co-maintenance actually needs to involve, to me.

  Unlike co-maintaenance, I don't use the software most of the time, I
don't care about it, and if the sponsor goes MIA, I would ask for
removal, if nobody steps up to adopt it, to avoid proliferation of crap.

  Packages I (co-)maintain are used by me, I also test the software,
hence endorse the fact that the package is not only compliant in its
packaging, but also in its functionalities. If my co-maintainers go MIA,
I keep the package, and won't ask for RM. In odd cases I would also
orphan it, but not remove it.

  There is fundamental differences in co-maintaining a package and
sponsoring it: I don't always have interest in things I sponsor.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpSAk2M66OEb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: