Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1
Hi Dimitri!
On 8 July 2016 at 05:27, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
> On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>>Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active,
>>
>>>NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work. Ie, instead
>>>of random sponsors, I'd suggest letting him do uploads.
>>>
>>>As you've helped with this package before, perhaps it might be good to
>>>consider co-maintenance?
>>
>> he declined the offer!
>> he is in lowNMU threshold however :)
>>
>
> lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)
I am motivated towards collaboration, not hostile takeover, and I
truly believe that our development strategies are complementary. I'd
also like to help triage and follow up on bugs. Where you prefer
large periodic updates, I prefer small incremental updates, after
verifying that they are progressive rather than regressive. This
verification is a mix of testing on a server, testing on a laptop, and
following linux-btrfs. Furthermore, given the following I understood
understood that smaller, more atomic and easily reversible incremental
changes over time were preferred, because that would make it easier
for you to revert ones you didn't like:
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:20:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CANBHLUiq+EzGqZ--AZFD7N1rtKvs9TJxASmqpb5Ws5iKAcJCBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]
From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>
To: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de>, 818687@bugs.debian.org,
Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>
> I haven't looked closely, but i have a lot dubious emails about btrfs package.
> (a) i do not maintain backports, anybody is free to do those
> (b) all of my packages are lowNMU, meaning I trust any/all DDs to do
> sensible things
> (c) I do not trust any other developers, meaning that nobody should be
> granting DM and/or changing Uploaders/Maintainers fields etc
> (d) any other fixes is fine to be uploaded, and if things break I am
> on the hook to fix things up afterwards =)
Getting the copyright file into a better state, making uscan work
properly, adding crypto signature verification for tarballs, and
ensuring that the upstream changelog is correctly installed are all
sensible things, are they not?
>
> And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
> to you about that.
You wrote something similar in the following email, but I couldn't
find a record of those responses either:
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:38:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CANBHLUiEGajnE8rebwgAodU+Qn7OTnky_bVnEagdU2hpZF8UVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with btrfs-progs package
From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>
To: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>
Cc: Uher Marek <marek.uher@t-mobile.cz>, Nicholas D Steeves
<nsteeves@gmail.com>,
"debian-backports@lists.debian.org" <debian-backports@lists.debian.org>
> I have accepted some, but not all patches from him. I disagree with
> some of them, which i have clearly stated before =)
Please let me know where you clearly state your reasons for
disagreeing with some of my patches. If you are taking the time to
reply then I don't want to waste your time by having not read your
replies! I follow debian-backports, debian-boot, debian-cd,
debian-devel, debian-kernel, debian-mentors, debian-multimedia,
linux-btrfs, and of course any bugs that I open.
Sincerely,
Nicholas
Reply to: