Re: packages in games team SVN where Maintainer != games team
* Miriam Ruiz <little.miry@gmail.com> [2008-03-07 13:39:32 CET]:
> 2008/3/7, Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>:
> > * Miriam Ruiz <little.miry@gmail.com> [2008-03-07 13:20:22 CET]:
> >
> > > All of the packages in the Games Team should be assigned to it as a
> > > maintainer because that will make everything easier.
> >
> >
> > In what way, out of curiosity?
>
> In this way: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-games-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org&comaint=yes
Alright. Just wondering, does comaint=yes gain anything in here?
But I noticed that several packages seems to need to get rescheduled
for a sparc build: dd2, dreamchess, etw, lordsawar, netpanzer, ppracer,
qonk, ri-li - they are outdated for over 20 days with failed builds due
to dependency problems. Try to get them rescheduled.
> And also, so that package bug reports go automatically to the mailing
> list (I know, there's always the option of PTS if needed).
With the ammount of things that fly around and the increasing of
packages it gets pretty tedious to track things here. It just doesn't
scale and I can't really blame people only following the one or two
packages they care about and ignore the others ...
> Also, I think we should move our ITPs (mine, at least) to the Team
> too, so that it's easier to keep track of them, but I'm not sure
> whether there's consensus on that.
That is the least troublesome thing and I would wonder about what the
reasons for not doing so should be.
> > As long as noone stumbles carelessly over wesnoth like it happened
> > before I don't really mind - after all I myself am listed in Uploaders
> > only anyway. I just don't want people with low insight into issues reply
> > to bugreports which I noticed happend in the past with various of the
> > packages - and then receive no response from those people when I try to
> > tell them about it. :/
>
> Shouldn't that go for all our packages, or just for Wesnoth?
Yes, but wesnoth is the package I feel most strongly attached to and
have a pretty strong opinion about. It was just the one of those listed
with not the team as maintainer address that I am attached to, so I
mentioned it.
The rest is more a generic thing indeed, but it might be a reason for
people to /not/ wanting to sent the maintaiiner field to the team and
thus have the bugs get sent to the list if such queries about how bugs
are addressed by certain people get unanswered and that there is no
general concensus on how the BTS should get used, how things are tracked
and in what way we communicate with our users.
> In any case, that doesn't have much to do with the maintainer label in
> control, but more with SVN access and the Team coordination, doesn't
> it?
If it goes about bug reports, it has mainly to do with the maintainer
label of the package and not at all with SVN access, the bts doesn't has
any access control. About team coordination, I'm all for it but to be
honest I only se a little bit happening - which I'm totally thankful
for, but I would have hoped in some areas for a bit of more
coordination; though I have to admit, I lack some in that area myself.
So long,
Rhonda
Reply to: