Re: egcc maintainer
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:47:20PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:21:31PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe we should use something like
> > > "Compiler maintenance group <galenh-egcs@debian.org>", but I'm not sure if
> > > policy has been modified to allow more than one maintainer per package.
> >
> > If it hasn't been, I will hereby re-request that it be changed.
> > Maintainer groups, especially for packages with high platform specific
> > content, are a real lifesaver.
AOL! Now that the fiercest opponent (Manoj S.) is temporarily away on
vacation, we can finally achieve concensus on this issue quickly.
Wow, just after we get a constitution, a real coup happens, I love it!
:-)
> AFAIK, ther's nothing in the policy against maintainer groups. Last time
> that issue was discussed, there were a few people that said maintainer
> groups may lead to diluted responsibility, and someone (can't remember
> who) suggested every team should have a coordinator. For example,
> the boot-floppies maintainer field is: "Enrique Zanardi <debian-boot...>"
> instead of "boot-floppies team <debian-boot...>".
I don't very much like either of "Compiler maintenance group
<galenh-egcs@debian.org>" and "Enrique Zanardi <debian-boot...>" because
it does not structurally solve the problem it addresses.
Instead, "Compiler maintenance group" <egcs@packages.debian.org> and
"Debian boot floppies team" <debian-boot@packages.debian.org> should be
used.
I wholehartedly agree that multi-maintainer groups should have a single
responsible person, but instead of kludgingly using qmail features or
certain general smtp options, the administration should really be the
responsibility of the Debian Project Secretary (who might in turn delegate
the practical work to another volunteer.) This way, there is much less
chance of a group responsible going AWOL and not properly passing on his
tasks to a successor.
Also, a fully generic address doesn't have the potential "history"
problems that an address containing real person references.
Cheers,
Joost
Reply to: