On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:21:23 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:29:13PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Can we come up with some way whereby the maintainership authority is
> > always shared, somehow ?
>
> The net result of this would be that anyone who maintains
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 19:20:36 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.
>
> This is the obviously right solution.
It is not only not obviously right to me, instead it seems obvious
it carries a set of
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> If one feels the source package isn't kept up-to-date enough, she
> can "just" file an ITP for a new source package name, pointing to
> hir attempts at convincing the existing maintainers. As ITPs are
> CC'ed to
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> So my question here is: why would someone who has learned to work
> amicably *within* the boundaries of several teams, will behave any
> different *across* those boundaries, when contributing to packages that
> belong
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:29:13PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Can we come up with some way whereby the maintainership authority is
> always shared, somehow ?
The net result of this would be that anyone who maintains packages in
Debian will do so as part of a team. Likely, people maintaining more
Le mercredi, 7 décembre 2016, 08.49:57 h CET Russell Stuart a écrit :
> Why not have a formal rule that says if a package in Debian is out of
> date for more than one release cycle any DD can package it under a
> different name, after going through the usual ITP procedures coupled
> with a bug
6 matches
Mail list logo
