On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 20:28, Michael Scherer wrote: > > But demand high quality for what they deliver. Otherwise, send it back. > > Well, of course. > Peer reviews, but this would say tht some developpers hav more power than > others. > All developers should be treated as equals, but, some of them should be "team > chief" , or something like that... > > > > >>How do we decide who become developer, what will be their > > >> responsabilities, their ressources ? > > > > > >I dunno. How does debian do it? > > > > I beleive a maintainer per package. See: > > Well, we could try something like morethan one developper per package. > Actually, in Debian, only the packager can change something. > If you take a look to the changelog of any of our package, this is not the way > it works. This works for debian since they have a lot of developpers. > I think we should try something different for here, something more flexible.
It's wrong! If the package has a security flaw, the Debian Security Team can do a NMU.In "bug squashing parties" maintainers usually do NMUs. NMU = Non Maintainer Upload Do you known about Co-Maintainers ? :) See, i'm an apllicant, i've some packages sponsored by a maintainer(developer).I'm not officially a developer, only a applicant waiting the DAM approval in the nm queue.But i've packages in the distribution! > Maybe, a team of developpers for some category of package ? > > > > I also like their "package adoption" system: > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ > > Package adoption is great, but, to orphan a package is not really seen as a > good thing by others developpers. > > > >Maybe some sort of wiki system. That could organize people and tasks, > > >and let new people sign up, and see what needs to be done. > > > > Just like the debian system. I wrote to the cooker list last week > > describing a web based package submission system, see: > > http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2003-01/msg02998.php > > Well, a wiki may not be the right thing. > A lot of people tends to think that a wiki is good, but, few have tried. > Of course I have never tried :-) , but I don't think this could be better than > a real groupware system. > > > >How can we do that? > > > > Q: when can we do that? And who will make it happen... There are a lot > > of bright people on the list that can help to make it happen. How do we > > first define an architecture for this. > > > Produce a document first? > > Right. > First a name for the document :-) > > > > PS: Some friends have always argued that the debian way is the only > > sustainable way to go. If mdk is going to do it just like debian, why > > not fold and move the idea's and effort into making debian a better > > distro instead of duplicating the effort? Sorry, but i've the same view! > What about doing it the same way than Netbsd and FreeBSD. > Debian is ported on a lot of processor, we can focus on a smaller subset. > They have goals for each release in term of version of software, we can have > more frequent releases, based on time. > This is possible, just take a look at the openbsd life cycle, one release each > 6 months. Do you known anything about Debian subprojects like: Debian Edu or Debian Desktop? You can help with the new installer, called: d-i based on cdebconf and start a new subproject or enhance a existing one. > If we clone debian, this is useless. But we can try something different. Right! Just for fun: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#policy http://www.debian.org/doc/misc-manuals#history Bye, -- Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
