|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: martin f krafftmartin f krafft Date: Jul 28, 2006 10:10
Please reply to -project only!
also sprach Matthew Garrett chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:> If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off
> my package", I'd do it here instead.
I've been thinking about this a lot for the past week.
Is there any way this could be changed?
Does Debian *want* it changed?
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella debian.org> [2006.07.28.1755 +0100]:> How many Debian maintainers think the same? I'm sure there are
> a lot of them who do not soffer of the "this is my package, go
> away" syndrome.
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
|
| | 50 Comments |
|
|
Author: Fabio TranchitellaFabio Tranchitella Date: Jul 28, 2006 10:20
Il giorno ven, 28/07/2006 alle 18.02 +0100, martin f krafft ha scritto:
> also sprach Matthew Garrett chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:>> If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off
>> my package", I'd do it here instead.
>
> I've been thinking about this a lot for the past week.
> Is there any way this could be changed?
In my opinion there are two issues which have to be solved before:
1. NMU are often perceived as personal attacks against the maintainer
of the package, and for this reason are not so common inside Debian.
As far as I know Ubuntu has no fixed maintainer, so there is no NMU
concept and the bad feeling about it disappeared too.
2. There isn't an easy way to check if the maintainer of a package is
actually working on the feature/patch which I would like to upload,
or just to work togheter. Yes, I know that several packages are
maintained in CVS/SVN/bzr/what-ever-else, but the repositories
are not centralized and a lot of maintainers don't use revision
control systems at all.
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Henrique de Moraes HolschuhHenrique de Moraes Holschuh Date: Jul 28, 2006 10:20
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Matthew Garrett chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:>> If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off
>> my package", I'd do it here instead.
>
> I've been thinking about this a lot for the past week.
>
> Is there any way this could be changed?
Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100%
mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.
Co-maintainers are much closer to what is being done in a package than
joe-random developer. Also, co-maintainership is far less prone to
fire-and-forget uploads that hose things, and are nicer to people who feel
very strongly about their packages.
IMO, if we could reach a better level of resilience, lower response times,
and agility with co-maintainership, it would be better than going to the
extreme Ubuntu did.
> Does Debian *want* it changed?
I personally would welcome it.
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
| 23 Comments |
|
|
Author: Clint AdamsClint Adams Date: Jul 28, 2006 10:50
> Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100%
> mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.
Are there packages which are particularly well co-maintained right now?
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: martin f krafftmartin f krafft Date: Jul 28, 2006 10:50
also sprach Gustavo Franco gmail.com> [2006.07.28.1838 +0100]:> * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.
> The developer needs to be logged and mark if all his packages (where
> he's listed as uploader) can be NMU'ed or not. He could add comments
> like "I'm listed as uploader in foo but group x is the backup
> uploader";
How about a flag in the package's control file and an appropriate
column in the PTS?
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
|
| Show full article (0.95Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Gustavo FrancoGustavo Franco Date: Jul 28, 2006 11:00
On 7/28/06, Clint Adams debian.org> wrote:>> Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100%
>> mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.
>
> Are there packages which are particularly well co-maintained right now?
>
What about debian-installer, xorg, gnome, kde, ... ?
regards,
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gustavo FrancoGustavo Franco Date: Jul 28, 2006 11:00
On 7/28/06, martin f krafft debian.org> wrote:> also sprach Gustavo Franco gmail.com> [2006.07.28.1838 +0100]:>> * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.
>> The developer needs to be logged and mark if all his packages (where
>> he's listed as uploader) can be NMU'ed or not. He could add comments
>> like "I'm listed as uploader in foo but group x is the backup
>> uploader";
>
> How about a flag in the package's control file and an appropriate
> column in the PTS?
>
I'm not sure about the details. Think about this use case: You're in
the middle of the transition, so this is ok NMU all "your" packages
related with that transition. You won't upload a revision to point out
that NMUs are welcome. We're using wiki articles and stuff like that
today. There's wotomae (DWTT) coming too..
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gustavo FrancoGustavo Franco Date: Jul 28, 2006 11:20
On 7/28/06, martin f krafft debian.org> wrote:> Please reply to -project only!
>
> also sprach Matthew Garrett chiark.greenend.org.uk> [2006.07.28.1737 +0100]:>> If Debian had slightly less of a culture of "Keep your hands off
>> my package", I'd do it here instead.
>
> I've been thinking about this a lot for the past week.
>
> Is there any way this could be changed?
>
> Does Debian *want* it changed?
I would like to see it, but with some comments:
Before Etch:
* Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.
The developer needs to be logged and mark if all his packages (where
he's listed as uploader) can be NMU'ed or not. He could add comments
like "I'm listed as uploader in foo but group x is the backup
uploader";
|
| Show full article (2.71Kb) |
| 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: Henrique de Moraes HolschuhHenrique de Moraes Holschuh Date: Jul 28, 2006 11:20
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Clint Adams wrote:
>> Yes, and we could start by really enforcing co-maintainership. Make it 100%
>> mandatory for all essential, required and base packages at first.
>
> Are there packages which are particularly well co-maintained right now?
Particularly well co-maintained? I don't know. Well co-maintained? Yes.
cyrus-imapd comes to mind, but that's because I follow that one very
closely.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie."
-- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST@ lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@ lists.debian.org
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Adeodato SimóAdeodato Simó Date: Jul 28, 2006 11:30
* Gustavo Franco [Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:38:52 -0300]:
> * Promote NMU LowThreshold wiki list giving it some official status.
And remember that (well done) NMUs are not only for bugs of RC severity.
For example, I'm going to upload to 7-delayed a fix for #368917, sending
the patch to the BTS at the same time.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Polar - It's so cold outside
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
