Re: sponsor rules
Hi,
Quoting Adam Heath (adam@lapdoog.doogie.brainfood.com):
> > In my opinion? every package should either have a 'debian.org' address in
> > the maintainer: line, or a <packagename>@packages.debian.org address; if we
> This is a loop. packagename@packages.debian.org sends to the listed
> maintainer, so listing that as a maintainer, would, in a two words, be bad.
Good point :)
Maybe the BTS should be smarter about processing bugreports? Sending it to
the person in the Maintainer: field, as well as to the last person in the
changelog (if these are different) perhaps ?
I don't know how big the impact of a change like that would be, but the
important thing seems (to me, don't know about anybody else), that the real
maintainer ('uploader') as well as to the 'packager' (who can be a sponsored
person, or maybe even an NMU-er) gets notified of changes and bugs.
This would probably require some more 'good manners' by NMU-ers, but bugs
introduced by the last upload could benefit (in the they-will-be-closed-faster
sense) from this.
If this would be too harsh a change (i'm guessing a strategy like this would
have lots of downsides too, and it changes NMU behavior a lot), there should
be some way of keeping track what the connections between maintainers and
sponsored-people are (and who the sponsored people are).
Probably all this emailing-of-bugreports to the sponsoring maintainer would
be more work and overhead and stuff, but it also adds an extra layer of
control; the 'maintainer' is confronted with the work of the person he
sponsors in a more direct way..
Greets,
Robert
--
Linux Generation
encrypted mail preferred. finger rvdm@debian.org for my GnuPG/PGP key.
Sodomy is a pain in the ass.
Reply to: