Re: Bug#1093192: #1093192 "ITS: vtgrab": no uploaders specified?

[Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:44:34PM +0100, наб wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:29:26PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 05:18:39PM +0100, наб wrote:
> > > Quoting the relevant:
> > > > It is recommended to choose between one of the two following schemes:
> > > > 2. Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field.
> > > >    In the Uploaders field, put the team members who care for the package. 
> > > 
> > > In the packages salvaged into the salvage team we have a choice between:
> > [..]
> > > 3. Maintainer: salvage team
> > > 
> > [..]
> > > 3 is a better fit for what I term dead-end packages
> > >   (ones that truly no-one cares about, with no upstream,
> > >    or no maintainer, or no utility, or otherwise 0 forward motion;
> > >    and with little potential to generate bugs except 1 FTBFS/decade).
> > >   This is most of the salvage team packages.
> > 
> > Why are what you call "dead-end packages" "salvaged" at all? I seem
> > to recall that the salvaging process is for packages you actually
> > want to maintain.
> Because a more aggressive RM RoQA policy got me yelled at last time
> for making work for the ftpmasters, so I stopped arguing for RMs
> and do Andreas' preferred methodology of salvaging everything.

> Doing this allows packages that tend to be in a functionally-orphaned
> state to be team-maintained in the long term. This satisfies the salvage
> criteria as I see them and I have an equal interest in every weird
> ancient FTBFS these packages generate.

If you are still interested in them, then properly document this and
add yourself to Uploaders:

Not doing this seems like a clear abuse of the ITS process to me.

Otherwise if you just want to "create facts", do an O: upload and
set Maintainer: Debian QA Group.

Chris