On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:12:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I have not withdrawn my intent to take over Bacula. I am volunteering > > to do some pretty significant work on it, and have already done so. > > You should not go ahead and remove José from maintenance over his > objection if he offers you co-maintenance. Your reason for hijacking > bacula seems to have been that José was slacking, not anything personal > or some such. In that case, I can understand that you want to take over
Well, I would say it's more that he has written very poor code -- some of which has been broken for several years -- and has not made much effort to fix it. For at least some of it, he does not believe there is a problem. Take a look at the BTS if you want. My first NMU closed 22 bugs (or will, once it gets out of NEW). > so that the work gets done. But if José says "I'm more than willing to > let you help out, but I still want to work on it", then that should be > respected; this is how it's always done in Debian. I have made it clear to everyone -- him included -- that I would be happy to receive patches. I will, however, be sure to review them before applying them. > Of course, if I misunderstood something, or you have some compelling > reason to block José from cooperating that you haven't talked about yet, > I'm happy to be enlightened. The most compelling reason: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED];arch=source Please note that the pending upload bugs on that page are ones that are fixed in my NMU. There are all sorts of other long-term blatant problems with Bacula that weren't reported to the BTS. His AM had already mentioned quite a few to him back in February. I don't believe jltallon is yet suited to maintain a package of this complexity. -- John
