Re: New Cinnamon Maintainer, looking for help
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: New Cinnamon Maintainer, looking for help
- From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 11:30:49 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20140501103049.GA5759@bryant.redmars.org>
- In-reply-to: <CAP+fKSoJXFSE7q_y45z+neGUZejfRhZmrV4DVnBKRf6W6hA4iw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20140426141436.GI16324@gnuservers.com.ar> <20140428151302.GA3345@bryant.redmars.org> <20140429084624.GJ16324@gnuservers.com.ar> <20140429130723.GA27441@bryant.redmars.org> <CAP+fKSoJXFSE7q_y45z+neGUZejfRhZmrV4DVnBKRf6W6hA4iw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Marga,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 08:13:38PM +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> There's also nothing stopping you from going to the web interface and
> checking.
Actually, there was. I lacked the time and tools to do so when I posted my
emails, which is why I asked rather than checking.
I would love to see cinnamon actively maintained in Debian and I'm glad there's
interested in doing so. I just wanted to make sure that those involved were
aware of the process for taking over a package, so there wasn't unnecessary
hostility or other problems. So far, nobody replying to my messages has
indicated that they are aware of the procedure, and intend to follow it.
> You will see that before the commits made by Maxy and me there are
> also the commits made by the previous maintainer. So, yes, it's a
> clone.
Great!
> The original mail said "new packages" because most of them are
> actually new.
I see. Thank you for clarifying.
> Sure. We have now both been added as admins of the pkg-cinnamon repo
> and will consider moving the git repos there. Since we want MORE
> people to contribute instead of less, we wanted to get the
> administrative procedures out of the way, and that's why we originally
> chose collab-maint instead of waiting for pkg-cinnamon to be made
> available.
I'm personally a big fan of collab-maint and would suggest that when the MIA
situation is resolved, if you wanted to keep it in collab-maint I don't see
why you should move it again, personally.
Reply to: