[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts on Debian quality, including automated testing

Andrew Suffield wrote:

On the other hand, I think there might be some benefit to requiring
that the Maintainer field must always denote one single Debian
developer, who would be the "buck stops here" guy for that
package. Not an applicant, not a mailing list, and not a group of
people. I believe the tools have now advanced to the point where this
is a practical option.

In general you're always far better off forcing every *change* to a
given component to go through a single individual. Large projects need
a pumpking, because dogpiling creates lousy software. For Debian this
would be cumbersome and unwieldy as a rule, but some high-importance
tasks could benefit from it.

I think you have something here, but I think allowing an applicant/mailing list in maintainer should be ok. In the case of an applicant, if they're doine the work, they both deserve the credit and should be the one to get all the messages that the various debian infrastructures sends out (Archive scripts, BTS, point of contact for security, etc). The latter also holds for mailing lists.

Instead, why not propose a Responsible-For: header for control that lists a person inside the project who the buck stops with in the case of an applicant or team maintained package?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: