Re: Cleaning Uploaders -- a mistake?
Damyan Ivanov <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> We revert the active sqeezing of Uploaders, unless a DM requests for the
> DM-Upload-allowed flag. In this case, the DM needs to prepare the
> package for this in SVN - add the flag, add himself in Uploads, ask for
> all other non upploading Uploaders if it is OK to remove them (unless
> they've stated it is generally OK before, as gregoa :)
> Yes, this looks like a workaround that places more burder on DM's
> shoulders. But it also would have triggered this discussion before
> Xavier's removal, not after it.
> Yes, it may make DM concept slightly less aplicable within the group,
> but I am fine with this, as it is not that desperately needed anyway
> (for reference, see the "ready for upload" section on our QA page)
>  http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/qareport.cgi
I don't think the DM concept is particularly useful for the debian-perl
group unless we're going to add the DM-Upload-Allowed flag to every
package. So much of the work of the group is cross-package work, driven
by global audits or reviews of every Perl module that has a newer
upstream. Even the people who aren't working widely cross-package are
usually maintaining groups of packages.
The DM concept is most useful for single packages where one spends a
considerable amount of time uploading new versions of that particular
package. That's rather rare for this group.
I'm happy to keep trying to find a few hours every couple of weeks or so
to upload a few more pending packages so that our non-DD contributors can
have their work accepted, and I think that work style works better for us
than the DM work flow.
Given that, I agree with this proposal and vote we don't change how we do
things because DM exists and instead continue as if DM doesn't exist until
we have a package where it's meaningful to add the DM-Upload-Allowed flag.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>