Quoting Otto Kekäläinen (2025-05-08 08:17:27) > I think Soren and Antonio summarized what I am thinking as well. If > there are seemingly unmaintained packages and we have people who are > willing to take care of them and update/refresh them by doing > something between a small NMU and a full-scale adoption, then that is > only positive.
I think that a small NMU is positive. I think that a full-scale adoption is positive. What I find quite problematic is blurring the lines between those: The former is helping out others, the latter is a friendly takeover. Sure, there are ways to help others that does not fit into an NMU. What is special about an NMU is that it is uncoordinated, which is an approach where we have to be extra cautious not to step on others' toes. I have helped out others by offering them to radically change their ways of life, but not *uncoordinated* with them. We have NMU and ITS, and we have plain old collaboration. If we want another, then please be clear what it is. Otherwise we are talking in circles here, and everyone in the conversation can choose to either agree or disagree depending on how each interpret the words. Please do not call an uncoordinated major change an intend-to-NMU, because NMU is well known in our community to mean an *uncontroversial* update. > Why do people who object this have to resort to words like "pressure", > "coercion" or "hijacking"? Seems to me you are intentionally trying to > make it sound negative by labelling, instead of discussing the main > problem of half-abandoned packages and how to enable collaboration on > them. How is uncoordinated non-minor changes collaboration? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
