On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:46:18AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:10:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> --- a/policy.sgml > >> +++ b/policy.sgml > >> @@ -1688,11 +1688,14 @@ > >> > >> <p> > >> The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog > >> - should be the details of the person uploading <em>this</em> > >> - version. They are <em>not</em> necessarily those of the > >> - usual package maintainer.<footnote> > >> - If the developer uploading the package is not one of the usual > >> - maintainers of the package (as listed in > >> + should be the details of the person who prepared this release of > >> + the package. They are <em>not</em> necessarily those of the > >> + uploader or usual package maintainer.<footnote> > >> + In the case of a sponsored upload, the uploader signs the > >> + files, but the changelog maintainer name and address are those > >> + of the person who prepared this release. If the preparer of > >> + the release is not one of the usual maintainers of the package > >> + (as listed in > >> the <qref id="f-Maintainer"><tt>Maintainer</tt></qref> > >> or <qref id="f-Uploaders"><tt>Uploaders</tt></qref> control > >> fields of the package), the first line of the changelog is > > > As I said earlier, I do not think that this matches current practices. > > > As I see current practices: > > 1) the name in the changelog in the one of whoever ran dch last, > > i.e. the name of the developer who changed the date in the changelog > > last. > > > 2) Someone sponsoring a package does not change it in any way. > > > Maybe this kind of information are better placed in the developer > > reference than in policy. > > Hi Bill, > > Your objection here is I think the only thing left to deal with to resolve > this bug, since the patch has otherwise been seconded. As Raphaël pointed > out, I didn't intend a substantive difference between "preparing the > release" and "making the last change"; whoever does the equivalent of dch > -r is what's meant. Do you think this is unclear enough that I shouldn't > merge the patch? I'm inclined to merge the patch since I think we're > falling into the trap of scrutinizing the wording too closely. > > I agree that the details that you describe should probably be in the > developer reference rather than in Policy, which is why I'm trying to keep > this as succinct and short as possible while still addressing the original > bug, which correctly points out that the current Policy wording implies > that sponsors of packages should replace the changelog footer with their > own identity (definitely not existing or recommended practice). It is clear we agree on the fundamental issues, so I will trust your judgement on the wording. I am always concerned that removing one ambiguity will introduce another. In this instance, if a package is comaintained, a release could be thought as prepared by several people. I have created a git branch bug593611-bill that I will commit in one week if nobody object. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballombe@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature