Merges - Pinging Previous Uploaders

[Stephan Hermann]

Hi Andy, All,

as a former MOTU/Core uploader, 

I came to Ubuntu just because there is no such rule as "You don't touch my 
package, because I'm the maintainer, and if you do I'll kick you in your 
face".

Nowadays, there is a difference within the MOTU Team in general.

Yes, we have a lot of biased MOTUs and DDs but even then: Do the merges. If 
you have problems, ask others. But do them. 

If you try to change the MOTU way, you will go the Debian way, which results 
in long delays in a release cycle.

The MOTU Team has a lot of power, regarding men/women and CPU wise, there are 
people who can do more merges, just because they have the knowledge and the 
cpu power, others don't, but what's the problem.

There are packages which are not touched by others, just because they are too 
sensible, or they don't want (like wine in the past, or FAI ;))

Don't go the Debian way, just do it the old fashioned MOTU style. That was the 
idea behind it..

\sh

Am Samstag, 14. Juli 2007 04:47 schrieb Andy Price:
> Hi folks,
>
> At the MOTU meeting today it was mentioned that we look into the merges
> process. I'm specifically looking into how best to streamline the part
> of the process where mergers "ping" the previous uploaders to check it's
> OK to merge the package. The clear problem case here is when the
> previous uploader is incommunicado for a while which makes the merger
> block until they are present, or maybe the merge is uploaded by a
> different MOTU and the previous uploader returns and is too late to say
> "No! Don't upload that!".
>
> One solution would be for those who prefer to take care of specific
> packages themselves to flag those packages as "Do Not Touch" in a
> comment on DaD or in a bug report. This would help others to choose
> merges to work on without worrying about stepping on toes.
>
> The previous uploader would then be subscribed to the merger's merge bug
> when it is opened. The previous uploader would then have until a good
> merge debdiff is attached to the report and u-u-s subscribed (plus an
> agreed period of time, perhaps?) to veto or control the merge before a
> u-u-s member could ACK it.
>
> Does this sound sane? Or maybe it'd just convolute the process? I look
> forward to reading your views.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Andy Price

-- 
Stephan Hermann
eMail: sh at sourcecode.de         Blog: http://linux.blogweb.de/
JID: sh at linux-server.org        
OSS-Developer and Admin