Re: NMUs and (auto-)subscription to the PTS
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: NMUs and (auto-)subscription to the PTS
- From: Sven Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:04:48 +0200
- Message-id: <44DCF0F0.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20060804123655.GA7146@aquarium.takhisis.invalid>
- References: <20060731043557.GA30496@chistera.yi.org> <20060804123655.GA7146@aquarium.takhisis.invalid>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:35:57AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> ISTR a discussion about automatically subscribing NMUers to the PTS for
>> the package, and dropping the subscription with the next upload of the
>> package (be it a maintainer upload or not).
> I think it would be "fair" only if the NMUers will get unsubscribed as
> soon as the real maintainer acknowledge the NMU, closing the
> fixed-in-NMU bugs.
> I also like Sven's proposal of automatically subscribing people listed
> in the "Uploaders:" field, with the same policy though: they should be
> subscribed as long as they are listed in that field.
Please don't do that. For many group maintained packages, a mailinglist
of that group is in the maintainer field, while the DDs from the group
are listed as Uploaders. So the implementation of that proposal would
result in duplicate mails for the maintainers.
> More generally, my principle would be that all people playing the
> maintainer role should have the same communication capability of the
> real maintainer. That capabilities should remain as long as they play
> the maintainer role.
That makes sense, but as far as I remember, NMU uploaders (and in many
cases: sponsors) don't add themselves as Uploaders. So for all the
packages I handled so far, it would make sense to subscribe the real
uploader of the package (the person signing the upload) to the package
until the next version is uploaded if (and only if) they are _not_
listed as either maintainer or uploader.