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