On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe >> won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules with >> a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained >> packages, so I personally can't see where it would break down. > > Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too > many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively > abandoned package. It also requires *more* skill than adopting the > package would otherwise, since you have to be good enough at Debian > packaging to make minimal chnages within some arbitrary packaging scheme. > In other words, it requires as much or more skill than doing NMUs, whereas > adopting a traditionally orphaned package is much easier.
Don't we expect the same adaptability of anyone trying to become a co-maintainer of any other package? Once someone has jumped all the hurdles to become a DD, at that point, aren't they expected to be of sufficient caliber and skill to be able to learn quickly and apply themselves to hard(er) problems? At one point, there were arguments on -devel against using git for packages because it increased the learning curve and thus may reduce potential contributors. This argument strikes me as quite similar. I think we have to be able to expect ourselves to be able to adapt and learn. If we can't do that, then we really weren't qualified, and we should get out of the way of those who can. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MMkenFta5+bH5o=DkU_Kc554jOb-G=+1a2bbftb9uo...@mail.gmail.com
