Re: DM and pkg-perl (alternative proposal)
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> This is an attempt to formulate some kind of a policy regarding the DMs
> and pkg-perl. At least this is what I am considering to do in this
> regard (for now). Input is sought from DDs, DMs, NMs, CIAs, FBIs and
> KGBs. Popes? No, thanks.
> It all starts when a DM asks for the addition of the DM-Upload: yes
> field to a package. When this happens, the targeted DD has to decide
> whether the DM can handle the package based on previous track record,
> seeking advise from others, whatever (s)he thinks is needed. Consulting
> the list may be good too.
> If the request is denied, nothing happens (except a sad DM perhaps).
> Explaination would be very nice of course.
> If the request is granted, then that DD removes all records from
> Uploaders that are neither a DD or the requesting DM and the
> package is uploaded.
> The above procedure fits also for adding a DM for a package that is
> already DM-enabled.
This has the drawback that a package with the XS-DM-Upload-Allowed field
becomes kind of closed to all the other DMs: if I can't add myself to
Uploaders without separate approval, any new version I prepare will
become an NMU.
The restriction would logically apply to all non-DD contributors,
including non-DMs: we wouldn't want any extra non-DD Uploaders for a
DM-enabled package, because we would then possibly have to clean the
Uploaders field later if the non-DD becomes a DM.
To make the upload a non-NMU the DD uploading the package will have to
add a changelog entry to fix the Changed-By field, which is more work than
currently required. Not much, though, so perhaps this is not a problem.
This comes a bit late, but I think a more liberal policy would
suit the existing pkg-perl spirit better: all packages with the
XS-DM-Upload-Allowed field should become free for all pkg-perl DMs to
upload. This would make the procedure much lighter.
We could require that the addition of the XS-DM-Upload-Allowed field
to any pkg-perl package should be announced on the debian-perl list,
so if somebody thinks the corresponding package is eg. too important or
difficult for a DM to maintain they could veto this. The announcement
could probably be automated with a post-commit hook.
As suggested earlier, packages could also be explictly marked not-for-DMs
by adding XS-DM-Upload-Allowed: no (possibly commented if this is not
valid syntax, I'm not sure) in the repository.
If people are really worried about DMs with pkg-perl commit access who
can't be trusted for this, I suppose we could keep an official list of
'pkg-perl DMs' and require approval from the DDs for inclusion. Any
DM not on the list that uploads packages would then be 'breaking the
rules', and in the worst case their commit access (or even DM status,
I guess) could be revoked retroactively.
(I'm a DM, but I'm not very interested in using the status with the
proposed pkg-perl rules. Asking for upload rights separately to each
package wouldn't scale, and in the last couple of years there has rarely
been much delay on DDs uploading my packages. Recently the process has
become even more streamlined with the qareport.cgi thing; many thanks
to everybody involved.)
Niko Tyni email@example.com