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

Re: On team maintainership of DPMT (PAPT) packages


[Sandro Tosi, 2008-03-09]
> I'd like to report here my feelings about the current way to maintain
> package in our repositories (DPMT and PAPT).

my turn. How I understand the team relationship: [0]

* if DPMT/PAPT is in our repo. (no matter where the team name is, in
  Maintainer or in Uploaders field) I'm doing changes in SVN, not via
  bugs in BTS. I'm not asking anyone before commiting (unless I'm doing
  major[1] changes, see below)

* if team name is in Maintainer field, I'm also uploading without asking
  anyone (but I'm adding my name in Uploaders if changes are major[1],
  otherwise I'm[2] using team address as uploader[3])
* if team name is in Uploaders, I'm asking Maintainer or one of people
  listed in Uploaders before uploading (or even before commiting, see[1]).
  If bug (that my change will fix) is RC, I *try* to reach Maintainer,
  but I'm uploading before dinstall time even without having a response
  from M. If my changes are not really that important (example:
  s/XS-Vcs-Browser/Vcs-Browser change) I'm just updating it in SVN and
  leaving it there with distribution field set to "UNRELEASED".

Unless I'm wrong[0], I don't see a need to change the policy. INAL, but
I think the policy allows me to do above (nasty) things :-)

[0] I might be wrong, correct me and I'll stop doing it
[1] major = switching from python-support to python-central, changing
    installation directory (think: DESTDIR), etc.
[2] well, never happened so far, I will do it once I need it, though[0]
[3] i.e. "last updater" - name in changelog, the one before the date

-=[     Piotr Ozarowski     ]=-
-=[ http://www.ozarowski.pl ]=-

Attachment: pgpnnUV3t3fUv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: