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

Re: "Team uploads"

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Monday 06 April 2009 08:18:33 Lionel Elie Mamane, vous avez écrit :

>> My reasoning is that a package that has had only "team uploads" for
>> three years is a package where effectively no human is taking charge
>> for maintaining it, just as a package that has had only NMU uploads in
>> three years; I'd like QA / potential adopters to see that in the
>> sequence of version numbers as they do now.

> I do not agree with you. In the ocaml team, I have prepared uploads
> for some transitions for package for which I am not in the uploader
> field.

> I am not in the uploaders because I am not the main responsible for
> this packaging, however my upload uses the correct workflow, and
> does not mean that there is no maintainer, but only that for small
> repetitive tasks, another member of the team can take care of it.

Yes, but if the "main responsible for this package" has done no work
on it for three years, it is a sign that maybe he doesn't feel
responsible anymore, or does not have time anymore or something like
that. Not proof, just a sign. Just like NMUs.

It falls in very well in the example you gave; some transitions were
handled by mass-bug filing + delay + NMU of packages that had not
transitioned, so the situation looks similar. For team uploads we
remove the bug filing, the delay, most of the NMU procedures (delay,
special handling of introduced patch, ...), but keep the NMU

> Hence, requiring NMU versioning and external patch system

I did not say one should require an external patch system, quite the
contrary. I wrote "no need to put patch in bug", generalise that to
"no need to treat the change / patch specially; just commit it in the
team's VCS repository, if that's what is usually done in that team".

> would really be a waste of time that would anihilate the efficiency
> of working in a team.

The only "burden" I propose imposing is the NMU versioning, which does
not feel to me like it is additional work. Instead of writing "-3",
write "-2.1"; only two keystrokes more.


Reply to: