-=| Niko Tyni, Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:46:27PM +0200 |=-
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:11:04PM +0000, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> This is much better, and I'm fine with it.
>
> I think the DM could clean the Uploader list herself, so the sponsor
> could just verify or revert this.
>
> I'm also unsure if it's really necessary to remove the note.
> Isn't just a regular entry in the changelog enough? The sponsor
> is supposed to check the package thoroughly in any case.
>
> Something like
>
> * Add the XS-DM-Upload-Allowed field.
> * Add myself to Uploaders.
> * Remove non-DD uploaders from the Uploaders list.
>
> is not very easy to miss, after all.
Yes, but imagine the case when the package is already DM-enabled. Then
the changelog entry that must be reviewed is simply
* Add myself to Uploaders
which is easier to miss. The large note fits the current practice of a
per-package "notebook".
> > 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.
>
> It's probably enough to just specify that only DDs may sponsor uploads
> changing the Uploaders field.
OK.
> Is there any sense in the 'official' pkg-perl DM list I suggested?
> Would it help the sponsoring DDs to decide which Uploader additions they
> approve, without having to consider it (and list grounds for rejections)
> on a case-by-case basis?
I think a "per-group" DM list is not necessary because:
1) I am lazy maintaining that :)
2) Keeping things per-package fits with the general DM concept, IMO. It
is all about "a package" and "a DM", i.e. it is managed on a
case-by-case basis. (And it seems we can keep the overhead low)
--
dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature