Vincent Bernat wrote: > While not having any official position in either of these projects, I > was able to contribute easily to both of them because they use a > standard workflow: no need to read tons of documentation.
There is some truth in this, but I'm not sure the proposal is directly addressing this issue. I'm a Debian user with some experience of packaging in-house applications, and very small exposure to uploading to Debian. I'm adding my point of view as a relative newbie for packaging, FWIW. The New Maintainer's Guide currently presents several different workflows, with very little guidance on which one to use, therefore this proposal sounds completely backassward to me: new maintainers are supposed to learn about several competing workflows and figure out themselves which one to use *before* building their first package, while experienced developers are being mandated to use one specific one, even though they might have valid reasons for using a non-standard one. How about having one *recommended* workflow, which is well documented and kept up-to-date, while still allowing experienced developers to adopt alternatives? Or at least do this in two stages: first get newcomers and people eager to change on board, and only then, in a second step, mandate a change in workflow from old dogs who must be forced to learn new tricks. Thomas
