On 2018-04-18 at 10:53, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 10:45 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >>> But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into >>> Maintainer and Uploaders. >> >> If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and >> "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing? > > The Maintainer field is only allowed to list one person for historic > reasons. So a new field was added to list additional maintainers. If it really is intended that the listed Maintainer be on an equal footing with any and all listed Uploaders, and there's no semantic difference between these fields - just the arbitrary limitation that one of them can't have more than one entry - wouldn't it make sense to deprecate the Maintainer: field, and move towards using Uploaders: only? I'm not sure that would be a good idea, but it would at least avoid the apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the roles which seems to have underlain some of the dispute in this case, and eliminating meaningless redundancy in a spec is generally a good thing. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature