On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 04:32:40PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I have started to work on a DEP that is a bit broader in scope but that
> should fix this at the same time.
>
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/
Thanks a lot for doing this!
There many many things in it that I like and that I think should be
pushed forward, quoting some of them from your initial draft:
- The flow of information is not the same depending on whether you're
listed in the Maintainer field
- The Uploaders field is often outdated
- Support alternate notification systems
- forward the relevant information by other means (RSS, XMPP, IRC,
etc.).
- new maintainers can then have access to some historic information that
used to be private for no good reasons
- solves the problem of maintainers who orphan their packages and are
still listed as maintainers in many released packages
the principle I like the most is that it reduces the barrier to become
(or, conversely, stop being) the maintainer for packages in the archive.
> In fact I combine an old idea that I already exposed (about tracking
> commitments) with a central infrastructure to dispatch information to
> package maintainers.
<snip>
> I expect that the most difficult part will be to decide how to deal with
> the "commitment tracking" part. What should we log? What sort of
> relationships should be defined and what should they imply (in terms of
> default set of information provided, and of associated commitments)? Etc.
This is the part that puzzles me the most.
Although I was also looking forward for your proposal on keeping track
of people commitments, I don't see the benefit of discussing the two
aspects together into an organic proposal. They seem to be quite
orthogonal, with very different scopes: one mostly technical /
infrastructural, the other on the definition of maintainership and the
(moral) requirements to be entitled to it. I can imagine some synergies
among the two, but not that many.
Considering the fact that the "commitment tracking" part might be harder
to reach consensus upon, I fear that joining the two together might sink
also the other part, that taken alone might have an easier way forward.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature