-=| Niko Tyni, Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:22:04AM +0200 |=-
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:15:49PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > This is an attempt to formulate some kind of a policy regarding the DMs
> > and pkg-perl. At least this is what I am considering to do in this
> > regard (for now). Input is sought from DDs, DMs, NMs, CIAs, FBIs and
> > KGBs[1]. Popes? No, thanks.
>
> > It all starts when a DM asks for the addition of the DM-Upload: yes
> > field to a package. When this happens, the targeted DD has to decide
> > whether the DM can handle the package based on previous track record,
> > seeking advise from others, whatever (s)he thinks is needed. Consulting
> > the list may be good too.
> >
> > If the request is denied, nothing happens (except a sad DM perhaps).
> > Explaination would be very nice of course.
> >
> > If the request is granted, then that DD removes all records from
> > Uploaders that are neither a DD or the requesting DM and the
> > package is uploaded.
> >
> > The above procedure fits also for adding a DM for a package that is
> > already DM-enabled.
>
> This has the drawback that a package with the XS-DM-Upload-Allowed field
> becomes kind of closed to all the other DMs: if I can't add myself to
> Uploaders without separate approval, any new version I prepare will
> become an NMU.
>
> The restriction would logically apply to all non-DD contributors,
> including non-DMs: we wouldn't want any extra non-DD Uploaders for a
> DM-enabled package, because we would then possibly have to clean the
> Uploaders field later if the non-DD becomes a DM.
>
> To make the upload a non-NMU the DD uploading the package will have to
> add a changelog entry to fix the Changed-By field, which is more work than
> currently required. Not much, though, so perhaps this is not a problem.
"dch -r" does this
> This comes a bit late, but I think a more liberal policy would
> suit the existing pkg-perl spirit better: all packages with the
> XS-DM-Upload-Allowed field should become free for all pkg-perl DMs to
> upload. This would make the procedure much lighter.
My problem with this are DMs that happen to be in a pkg-perl package's
Uploaders and that weren't advocated by pkg-perl members.
> (I'm a DM, but I'm not very interested in using the status with the
> proposed pkg-perl rules. Asking for upload rights separately to each
> package wouldn't scale, and in the last couple of years there has rarely
> been much delay on DDs uploading my packages. Recently the process has
> become even more streamlined with the qareport.cgi thing; many thanks
> to everybody involved.)
Here's a variant of the procedure that should not take much time from
anybody.
DM prepares new (upstream/debian) version of the package and wants it
uploaded. That DM is also confident in working with the package and
wants to be able to upload it in the future. She has to do three things:
* add herself to Uploaders
* add XS-DM-Upload-Allowed: yes
* add a note to the changelog (in such a manner that it can't be missed
by the sponsor) warning of the changes.
Next, the sponsoring DD decides and either
a) removes the note, cleans Uploaders and uploads the package
b) denies the request, removes the note, undoes
upload-permission-giving changes (Uploaders and/or
XS-DM-Upload-Allowed), runs 'dch -r' and uploads as before
Note that "sponsoring DD" can technically be fullfilled by a DM who is
already allowed to upload the package. I think this needs at least a
public request to debian-perl before taking place.
--
dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature