On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:51:54AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes: > > > The point of team upload is precisely so that you can update the package > > and not take responsibility for a package that you don't want to > > maintain in the long run. > > > > I was in many Uploaders field because lintian complain if you are not in > > Uploaders/Maintainer, yet I was there only for a single team upload for > > a perl or a python transition and using an NMU version would have been > > wrong because everything was properly done in the team VCS and there was > > no NMU to integrate for the next person working on the package. > > > > So I object to using NMU version for team uploads but I would like to > > have a mechanism for a team upload that doesn't lead to people adding > > themselves in Uploaders when they don't have a (real/long-term) > > commitment to the package. > > > > Then, the Maintainer/Uploader field would be again more accurate to know > > if we have people that care about the packages or not. So I see this > > change as good move to better detect that nobody cares about the > > package. > > Yeah, this is where I'm at with it too. There still should be some humans > in Maintainer/Uploaders who are taking primary responsibility for the > package, but I think other team members should be able to do QA-style > fixes and transition uploads without using NMU versioning or add > themselves to Uploaders and hence imply that they're taking ongoing > responsibility for the package. +1, IANADD though. Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature