Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
Simon Huggins <email@example.com> wrote:
> [honouring m-f-t]
>> > I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent
>> > packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs.
>> If DMs not maintaining libraries is how you expect this problem to be
>> mitigated, you might want to consider making this an explicit policy.
> Not really. I don't think discouraging competent DMs from maintaining
> libraries is a good idea (hopefully a lower barrier to entry to the
> archive will also encourage people to join NM).
I also wouldn't recommend an explicit policy here, and the reason why is
that I'm thinking about teams.
For example, the texlive-bin package contains one library and one
libdevel package, but development doesn't actually take place there,
it's very stable (in the sense "nothing happens", not "everything is
fine"). I would be really happy if we could give some non-DDs in our
team upload rights for our packages. I trust they would do uploads
after the necessary checking, and restrict themselves to only upload
changes which have been discussed or are obviously needed.
It would be a pity if these people were able to upload texlive-base, but
not texlive-bin because of a never-changing library in it.
Other teams might face less extreme situations, but I think it's up to
the team to decide which DM get Uploader status in which packages.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)