On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 08:00:29PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > >I think that if such a change is made to the Uploaders: field of a package > >without the maintainer's approval, this means that instead of just > >hijacking > >the package, you've hijacked the package and then *lied* about it. It > >isn't > >comaintenance unless the parties explicitly agree to it. > Well, it does not necessary be a lie if you mention it explicitely in > the changelog. If Matthew would not have shown up for whatever reason > I think it might have been a reasonable alternative to a not approved > NMU. The line "Uploaders: foo" is still a false statement, regardless of how you explain it in the changelog. The person adding that line isn't an authorized uploader, and doesn't even have a working relationship with the maintainer; adding oneself to the Uploaders: field only serves to break our ability to properly track such an upload as an NMU. > >If you meant that Nelson would only be added to the Uploaders: field with > >Matthew's approval, then I guess I don't know why the QA team's input would > >be required. > No, I wanted to hear you opinion if Matthew would not answer and my > conclusion > (for a different case than this) seems to be that NMU should be prefered > over adding somebody to the Uploaders field, right? Yes, there's nothing wrong with an NMU, as long as it's done right -- which means making sure the maintainer can come by afterwards and have a full documentation trail of what was done. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature