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

Re: RFS: libv8

2009/9/7 Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>:

> While I understand that you mentioned this regarding a NEW package, I'm
> a slightly bit confused about the "best current practices" of the DMUA
> field.
> Some sponsors seem to like to add the field themselves, while others
> explicitly say "please, add the field so that you can continue uploading
> without having many rounds of e-mails". I had at least had three
> sponsors telling me the latter.
> Perhaps this is a particular case with my packages, perhaps it is their
> preference, but it is, nonetheless, a bit confusing. :-)
> I repeat it here that you mentioned the fact that the package was NEW
> and things are quite different for them.

During discussions and creation of the DM concept, I understood that
DMUA was to be added by individual sponsors for specific packages
where they specifically thought the DM was capable of maintaining that
specific package well. It seems that has gone out the window; I've
seen various situations like the current thread where DMs have added
DMUA when they shouldn't (based on the original plans for the field).
I'd personally like to see the DMUA field replaced with some other
mechanism, but I'm not sure what kind of mechanism would be helpful
here. Perhaps a mail bot or a field that had to be manually added to a
.changes file by the DD.



Reply to: