Re: DEP-2: Debian Package Maintenance Hub
This proposal has a lot of potiential to change Debian for the better,
thanks a lot.
I had planned to work on the BTS IRC bot from #debian-devel-changes
and enable it to forward stuff to more channels based on package name,
but it sounds like this proposal obsoletes that bot too.
I guess this proposal could also obsolete the low threshold NMU list:
http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu
The DMUA mechanism currently depends on Maintainer/Uploaders, how do
you see DEP-2 interacting with it? Personally I would very much like
the DMUA mechanism go away and be replaced by something much more
explicit (my initial thought was an OpenPGP-based mail bot).
One thing that I have always wanted to see was better connections
between Debian and our users. Would this also enable say these?
* the QA team to notify users a package is about to be removed
* the security team to notify users they need to update
* package developers to ask people to test a new feature
I wonder what kinds of commitments we might want people to document
about packages, some thoughts:
I use foo but could easily switch to something else.
I use foo rarely but want it to be available when I do.
I use foo often and it is an integral part of my workflow.
I have access to commit upstream on foo.
I am willing to triage bug reports on foo.
I am willing to review VCS commits on foo.
I am willing to fix only RC bugs on foo.
I am willing to do usual package maintainence.
I want to know when foo is updated in stable.
I wonder if this discussion should be brought to
debian-project/debian-devel, especially the maintainer/commitment
stuff will be quite far reaching.
As someone who has done a few PTS patches, I would welcome the
technology changes you plan. I do worry that not using static HTML
will reduce the performance though.
The data export thing sounds a bit like DDE, by Enrico Zini:
http://dde.debian.net/dde/
I wonder about the alioth FusionForge instance and how this will
interact with it.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: