On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:34:10AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ah, hadn't though about that, but notice that the changelog entry will
> be attributed to the guy who lastly edit it, which is usually the guy
> who uploads the package (thus not me). Does the script take into account
> sub-entries in the changelog or only the main entry name ?
Don't know, but we can craft the script as we want. My preferred policy
would be to ignore the changelog bottom-line name and consider only
'[FirstName LastName]' entries. If there is no such entry then the
bottom-line name should be considered.
Then take the last n-th name using the policy above and those are your
Uploaders.
> That said, in this automated world, can we easily distinguish between a
> contributor which should be uploader, and one which is a mere
> contributor ?
I don't see why we should ...
Contributors to me are all "equal", it just happen that some are able to
upload and some aren't, but I don't care more than this.
> The PTS will list all packages you are a maintainer for, as well as
> those you are uploader.
Yes ...
> Since the maintainer is the mailing list, the ocaml packages are
> automatically attributed as co-maintainership to each uploader. If you
> get dropped from it, because you didn't upload it in some time or
> whatever, they will automatically be dropped from the PTS
> package-per-maintainer page, thus giving you less overview of the
> packages you care about.
The assumption of all this is that the concept of "package you care
about" is the same as "packages you did something for". With the
reasoning above you're breaking this assumption.
Also it seem to me that it's bringing us out of track: the goal of the
PTS is monitoring the packages you're working on, not the packages
you're interested in as a "lurker".
> If you could configure and organise the ppackage-per-maintainer PTS
> page, you could simply add packages you are interested in and not
> uploader, and this would not be a problem.
This would be a reasonable feature request for the PTS, but (knowing how
it's implemented) not easy to add ...
> I don't think you understood me right, or else i didn't understand yoru
> answer (or both :)).
Indeed, it was my understanding that you was pointing to some technical
incompatibility between this idea and the PTS way of handling Uploaders,
I hope we are better understanding each other now.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature