On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:16:42PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Do you believe instead that their stated willingness to contribute > automatically justifies risking the QA/MIA workload associated with > cleaning up after the developer if they disappear again?
No, I think we need to be able to do QA tasks anyway -- for packages like cruft and ifupdown to use examples that don't need to offend anyone else -- and I don't think there's any benefit to be had from making it hard for people to provide valuable contributions. > Why would > trying to assure ourselves that developers will follow procedures be a > punishment, rather than an act of self-preservation? If it were an act of self-preservation, it'd need to be applied consistently. Badly maintained packages cause the exact same problems whether that's due to someone focussing their efforts elsewhere within Debian, or outside of it. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
