Re: DM and pkg-perl
> From: Damyan Ivanov [mailto:dmn@debian.org]
>
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key: 11/21/2007 at 08:26:47 PM -=| gregor
> herrmann, Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:35:54AM +0100 |=-
> > It is "wide-open" but I guess _if_ the group wants to use the DM
> > status it's the only realistic way to go.
> >
> > What I'd like to see are statements of the active DDs of the group
> > before we make this not unimportant addition to our internal policy.
>
> My concern with this is that if agreeing to follow policies was
> enough, DMs might as well be treated as DDs :)
This is undoubtedly a side effect of DM.
> Question 2: how to avoid this unintentional giving of upload rights?
>
> My answer to this is to clean Uploaders: list before uploading $P with
> DM-Yes from all non-DDs, except $A. This would mean we change our
> polocy about the Uploaders: field that whoever makes a change worth
> noting in changelog, adds him/herself to Uploaders. The nice thing
> about this policy is that it makes the contributor feel more
> responsible and easier for him/her to track his/her work via
> packages.qa.d.o pages. (Note that the fact that $B contributed to $P
> would not be wiped, as changelog would keep $B's entries).
>
> So, what do you think about such approach?
I think it is both good and bad.
Good because it models the way pkg-perl works now and that has proven
to be an effective method of collaboration allowing people to
contribute significantly to debian without having to become a DD.
Bad because the problem the DM was meant to solve is still present.
The goal is (presumably) to give rights to someone to independently
upload packages to debian. If they get that right, they should be
considered able to package software according to debian's standards -
this has to apply across teams, otherwise you need a team-based flag.
In Damyan's scenario, an unknown uploader has received approval, but
they may or may not be competent enough to create packages according
to the standards that have been informally adopted by the pkg-perl
team. This requires a DD to approve the package before uploading,
thereby obviating the need for a DM flag in the first place and
keeping the DD approval process for uploading packages essentially
unchanged, just adding complexity.
The only way to avoid this, I feel, is to make sure that the quality
of the DM is sufficiently high that the DDs who oversee uploading feel
confident that the DM flag is reliable and therefor do not have to
manually check packages.
Jeremiah
Reply to: