Hi Dimitri! On 8 July 2016 at 05:27, Dimitri John Ledkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna <[email protected]> > 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--azfd7n1rtkvs9tjxasmqpb5ws5ikacj...@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU] From: Dimitri John Ledkov <[email protected]> To: Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> Cc: Christian Seiler <[email protected]>, [email protected], Gianfranco Costamagna <[email protected]> > 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_bvneagdu2hpzf8...@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Problem with btrfs-progs package From: Dimitri John Ledkov <[email protected]> To: Gianfranco Costamagna <[email protected]> Cc: Uher Marek <[email protected]>, Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > 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
