On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 01:58:44AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > I'm not happy about removing the tag, especially without having any > notification about it, I also tried to not sound angry, but I was in a similar mood with regard to having it added without being asked or even told, and even without it being in the changelog. It looked like a "power grab" (similar to, but much less severe than, when a backdoor would have been added to the program). I was in fact considering to suggest using the DM method to Jens, but didn't do so for the moment because of this. The reason I uploaded the package anyway (and didn't wait for this discussion) was that it fixed an RC bug. I considered this issue something that needed talking about, but not important enough to delay the fix. After all, adding the tag later is very easy. > as it has the meaning of effectively leaving me out of a package I > started myself. It just leaves things as they are, non-DDs need a sponsor to upload packages, including the ones they started (and even the ones nobody else ever touched). As I wrote, I'm a big proponent of the system, and I would be happy to add this tag for you, as well. But not without being asked. > I'll think about it calmly and decide what to do about it then. It's > not a good thing to reply angryly. Thank you. I appreciate that a lot. > In any case, the rest of the team please tell what you think about > these tags, are you also against me being able to upload the games > directly to the archives? I am in fact not against this. I am against getting this sneaked into a package like this. Allowing you to upload packages for the games team sounds very useful, and I'll happily add the tag for you in the next upload. (Even though the tone was unusual, I'll take your e-mail as a request for this anyway. ;-) ) > PS: we're still short of sponsors, btw I'm starting to have more time available, so I might help out more. Is there a list of packages that need sponsoring, or should I just browse mentors.net? On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 08:49:43PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > - You can only upload packages which are marked as "acceptable for DM > > upload" using the tag this message is about. (Well, without XS, so > > these tags don't do anything, but they suggest that adding the real > > tag is a detail). > > Actually, with the "XS-" is the way to do it, dpkg removes this from the > field names when constructing the source package. Oh, ok. > > Ps: I am aware that there is currently no implementation for uploading > > by DMs. But when preparing for when that is done, we should > > consider things as if it's done already. > > The implementation might be further along than you think. :-) I asked > Miriam if she's like to be one of the testers of the DM system as we > work on implementing it, since she's a high-profile non-DD member of > the games team. Good idea. :-) What also helps is that I trust her packaging enough to be comfortable with adding the tag for her. :-) Shouldn't I have seen a request for her being added to the DM keyring on the -newmaint list in that case? I remember only one of those, and I don't think it was for Miriam. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature