Re: The Debian Maintainers GR
* Raphael Hertzog (email@example.com) [070729 10:38]:
> Agreed it makes sense to distribute the load on more shoulders. It doesn't
> make sense to do it on non .d.o machines and it doesn't make sense to have
> two wanna-build instances.
I disagree to that. For example, it is far easier to try things out on
the buildds that don't build unstable, because it is far less bad to
break something there (even though of course we try to avoid that).
> I'm sorry if you feel that the current vote is sub-optimal, but you should
> have gotten involved earlier. In the mean time, this vote involves only
> acceptance of the 'principle', the real implementation can evolve and
> possibly get integrated into NM (exactly like sponsorship got integrated
> in NM after sponsorship got created).
That's now garbage. The vote has a micromanagement implementation plan,
so you cannot say "it just is about the principle". It is about
micromanaging parts of the implementation.
> > And, apart from any issue what you needed to discuss - I don't think the
> > current proposal has a big enough usecase (please see what e.g. Russ has
> > written) to warrant it risks. Joergs proposal seems better to me.
> The 900 non-DD maintainers are not a big enough use case for you?
I hope you notice that even I'm on that list marked as non-DD maintainer