Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:37:53PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> As an example, we do have teams that define in their policy the
> semantics for "person in Maintainer, team in Uploaders".
That should be changed. Its a perfect way to exclude "Uploaders" from
beeing informed about issues with a package.
> It is interesting how you manage to argue both based on a very specific
> definition of teams you have in mind, and based on declaring that all
> this is not well-defined and that we neither can nor want to define it.
>
> What is needed is a machine-readable mapping between teams and their members.
+1
> Mandatory Uploaders gives a good-enough approximation of that.
I admit that at least one Uploader should be mandatory if Maintainer is
not a person.
> An alternative option of maintaining machine-readable information
> about team member in a different place outside the packages would
> fix the problem of losing information about team membership.
What place would you suggest? If I would like to know all members of
a team I would do an UDD query for all packages maintained by the team
(mailing list address) and check the list of Uploaders mentioned of
all those packages. May be that's a biased view that works in those
teams I'm a member of.
> Or the low-change option of documenting that the already used way of
> autogenerating the Uploaders list based on information stored in one
> core package of the team is a valid option - this allows teams with many
> packages to get rid of the problem of having to update this information
> manually in every single package.
I'm convinced that manual updating of team membership will not work.
Its the reason why I started team analysis stats 9 years ago since I
just was not able to tell who is a member of Debian Med and who is not.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: