Hi, Am Samstag, den 04.07.2009, 01:48 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane: > > The debatable details are: > > * Who sets the release to unstable, and when? > > * Who sets the git tag and when? > > With the proposed scheme, the release in the changelog indicates the > > desired state (package ought to be uploaded), while the tag indicates > > the real state (this is the state that has been uploaded). > > In pkg-cli-*, which I'm also an active contributor in, the sponsor > does both of these. IMO if the contributor also has to RFS somewhere > it doesn't matter what the release is set to in the changelog, and > it's much easier for people to eyeball by just pulling and viewing the > changelog than comparing the latest version against what the tags say. One advantags of the „contributor sets the distribution“ is, at least if debchange -r is to be used, that the contributor is left in the Changed-By field, which makes more sense IMO. Also, RFS mails might get lost somewhere, having a package in a „fit for release“ state in the archive does not. Last advantage is I see is that it’ll be easier to have something like pet.cgi which will have a way of knowing what packages are waiting to be uploaded. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil