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

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

On 12-02-19 at 08:44am, David Bremner wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:15:19 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, In my opinion that goes for sponsoring too: The sponsor should 
> > add herself/himself in the changelog to clearly advertise to the 
> > World whom within the Debian web of trust proof-read and uploaded 
> > the packaging.
> > 
> Hi Jonas;
> I understand the motivation, I think, of making sponsor responsibility 
> more clear. But I think in general it is more important that the 
> sponsor upload (or choose not to) a pristine package from the 
> sponsoree.  This avoids situations where the sponsoree somehow feels 
> sabotaged by changes after they last saw the package,

Obviously sponsors should not sabotage works of sponsorees.  Which 
leaves the _feeling_ of sabotage.

I disagree that avoiding sponsorees _feeling_ sabotaged is more 
important than documenting who in Debian changed something in Debian.

> and it also matches my understanding of what the responsibility of 
> sponsoring is: to act as a gatekeeper, but not to promise any further 
> maintenance of the package (other than orphaning of the sponsoree goes 
> MIA).

The very act as gatekeeper is the responsibility I want more explicit.

(yes, I dislike the sponsoring system in general due to that lack of 
responsibility inside Debian for the _maintainance_ of packages, but 
that is a different issue: here I raise a concern only about visibility 
of responsibility inside Debian in _releasing_ a package).

The key part is "inside Debian": We trust each other, but cannot trust 
sponsorees (that's the whole reason for them needing a sponsor!), so 
they need someone among us to take the responsibility on their behalf.  
I want that responsibility clearly stated.

> We have both sponsoring and co-maintenance; there is no rule that says 
> co-maintainers have have to be DD/DMs.

Since only DD/DMs can upload co-maintained packages, same rule applies 

Or did I miss your point?

> One suggestion that came up on IRC was to have the PTS track the 
> "who-uploads" information to make it more convenient for 
> non-developers (or just lazy developers ;) ) to access, and more 
> visible.

That argument has come up before.  It is nice that our online machinery 
can infer such information.  I still find it much better to simply 
require that the changelog entry reflects in its final line the Debian 
entity responsible for the packaging release.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: