Re: meaning of d-o-m maintainership
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 04:40:23PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Mike Furr wrote:
> > maintainer to d-o-m, so others could help out. Do you guys want to
> > have most of the ocaml packages maintained by the group, or should the
> > maintainer field just be set that way for (semi-) core packages?
>
> In the package I've uploaded I maintained a clear distinction. Packages
> which have me as Maintainer are packages on which I would retain
> "control", this means that I took care of the packages tracking new
> upstream version and RC bugs, but also that I'm free to choose packaging
> "style", cosmetic issues and so on. Of course NMU are permitted, but
> they should better follow debian guidelines for NMUs.
>
> Packages in which I've set the Maintainer field to d-o-m are packages
> that I consider as maintained collaboratively. This means from one side
> that there is no longer a single responsible for them, but rather a
> group. From another point of view this also means that people making
> changes in those packages should agree on packaging "style" (e.g. they
> should use consistently dpatch).
I have set in all my ocaml-related packages the maintainer field
to the current members of the "ocaml gang" (except for hevea where
I simply forgot it, this will be fixed at the next upload), and I'll
be happy to add Mike to this list at the occassion of the next uploads.
Though, for me the meaning is slighlt different from what Zack said. I
would like to continue to be the principal maintainer of these packages,
but if I can't do the nexessary modifications myself, for whatever reason,
the other members of the group are welcome to do the necessary. Still,
I would like to have a chance to do the changes myself. In the past
this has worked out very well.
In the beginning of this collaborative thing I already suggested
that the first person in the Uploaders field should be considered
as the "principal maintainer" of the package in this sense. What
do you think about this?
-Ralf.
--
Reply to: