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

Re: Best scheme for teams and Maintainer/Uploaders fields ?

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:03:03AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a member of the pkg-ruby-extras team. In this team, we use the
> following scheme for the Maintainer and Uploaders fields:
>   Maintainer: "main responsible person for the package" (ie best contact
>   point)
>   Uploaders: the team mailing list, + all the members of the team
>   (auto-generated using a cdbs rule)
> This is not optimal:
> - this generates very long DDPO pages, with lots of packages people
>   don't care about:
>   http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net
> - it's difficult to keep track of who is caring for that package (hint:
>   QA, MIA, ...)
> The perl team, on the other hand, uses the different scheme:
>   Maintainer: "main responsible person for the package"
>   Uploaders: the team mailing list, + members who actually care for the
>   package (who have touched it in the past, for example).
> This leads to much shorter and interesting DDPO pages, without any
> drawback I can see (the "all packages from the team" DDPO page is still
> available using the the team mailing list address).

  in the KDE Team we use: Maintainer <the list>, Uploaders <the
responsible for the packages>. The list beeing debian-qt-kde@l.d.o or

  But that's roughly like the perl pkg group, and that's IMHO the sanest
way. That do not mean that people from the team only work on "their"
packages at all, that just set the name of those who worked the most on
them, and that are responsible for QA and so on.

  In a packaging group, the rule that shall be implicit is that
everybody can touch "everybody's" package, except if specifically
documented so (with an excellent rationale, and I must say I don't see
any that would be good enough ;p).

  So IMHO, yes, the perl approach is way better.
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpGPXJ8FdRYg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: