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

Re: Bits from the MIA team

On Saturday 8 December 2007 18:20, Luk Claes wrote:
> Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hi Mario,
> > * Mario Iseli <mario@debian.org> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Team maintenance
> >> ================
> >> If one package of the person is maintained in a team, at the step where
> >> we send the prod-mail we file a Bug of severity "serious" against the
> >> package, requesting that the person is being removed from the
> >> Uploaders/Maintainers-field. At the point where we orphan the packages,
> >> and the person isn't removed from those fields, we just make an NMU to
> >> enforce this. Don't forget to set these usertags:

> To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
> If a package is well maintained it's perfectly ok to lower the
> importance of the bug and fix the issue in the next upload...

I agree with Nico here - I can see the use of such a bug but wouldn't be 
amused if people filed an RC bug against my package for something which is 
essentially a cleanup issue. Yes it can be lowered by the maintainer, but 
filing it at the right severity to begin with (I suggest minor) seems like a 
better idea to not cause friction.

On Saturday 8 December 2007 18:39, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't agree with this. In a team, it's difficult to notice that one
> member disappeared. And lack of involvement in one package doesn't mean
> being completely MIA. As co-maintainer I wouldn't want to remove someone
> if I'm not sure that he won't come back.

A "minor" bug would have just the same effect that you want here. "serious" is 
not appropriate (see the description of that severity[1]) and doing an NMU 
for an otherwise active team is even less appropriate for this kind of issue.

Filing a bug at a reasonable severity: good
NMUing if the package seems otherwise unmaintained: good
Filing a bug at release critical severity: not good
NMUing if the package seems not otherwise unmaintained: not good


[1] "is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a must or 
required directive), or, in the package maintainer's opinion, makes the 
package unsuitable for release."

Attachment: pgpsu7iTlVF8I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: