[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: maintainer field

On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 02:06:56PM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> On 9/6/07, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@certik.cz> wrote:
> > > This is certainly my preference. It's much clearer if there is *one*
> > > person named as the responsible party for the packages.

> > > It's a fact of human psychology that if a collective group is named as
> > > the responsible party, then nobody in that group feels particularly
> > > responsible. This is one reason why groups nominate a leader: it gives
> > > that person a stake in seeing the group's efforts succeed.

> > That's right, on the other hand I think philoshophy here at DPMT is
> > that if the maintainer is set to DPMT, anyone can make any change and
> > upload. If I am set as the maintainer, I should approve all the
> > changes - but that can be slow (I can be out of town, I can be busy,
> > etc.).

> > So I myself chose to be among Uploaders and set Maintainer to DPMT,
> > because this more enforces team work and I like team work.

> I had a discussion on #debian-devel about this, and "they" thought it
> was pretty stupid to have DPMT as uploader, as it would make every
> package NMU.

No, what was said was that it was meaningless to list a mailing list in the
Uploaders field because a mailing list can never do an upload and therefore
it misses the /point/ of the Uploaders field.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: