Re: DEP-2: Debian Package Maintenance Hub
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> I think this way you get the worst of all possiblities combined.
>
> As maintainers might not use it, you need a copy for subscribed users
> anyway. But you also get a mail to the address for packages of
> maintainers that do (unless every information source special cases those
> addresses), so you need something to only use one of those mails (which
> might arrive in any order at the service).
>
> Thus you make sure the duality stays forever.
>
> Compare this with every information is only sent once to the new service:
I won't deny that it would be cleaner if all the Debian services could
send the information directly to this infrastructure only, but we had this
discussion multiple times with the PTS already and we never seemed to have
any sort of buy in from ftpmasters or BTS maintainers.
(And somehow I can understand them, I wouldn't want to denaturate the
software to stop sending mails to the Maintainer since that's the right
thing to do in the generic case)
That's why I picked this approach which allows to start even if we don't
have buy in from some key teams and even if some maintainers are opposed to
the new approach.
Later when it will be widely adopted, it will still be possible to push to
make it mandatory. And at that point the infrastructure teams will rather
help us since it would allow them to get rid of the kludge that is the
copy sent to the PTS.
Now we can try to get consensus on this on -devel. I shall bring the
question there once we're a bit more advanced in the design. I have noted
this in the DEP draft.
> Information source do not need to send copies, they do not have to care
> about "Maintainer:" or "Uploader:", just a single way to send stuff.
> (And if anything wants to have a mode for non-Debian it still needs to
> know when to send a copy to the PTS or this new service, so just only
> sending it once in that case makes things only simpler even then).
The copy to the PTS has been implemented everywhere as a configuration
option that's empty by default so there's no "logic" to decide when it needs
to send a copy to the PTS.
> Maintainers do not need to change their packages instantly (and most
> packages might not need any changing at all). As uploader-,
> maintainer- and subscription mail is sent by the same service, it could
> offer settings like "send mails for this package to this address instead
> of my old maintainer address in stable" or "don't send me a copy if this
> mailing list also gets a copy" or "send me a copy for things I'm
> uploader unless I already get a copy" instantly.
We get those benefits with the new infrastructure in all cases (whether or
not we change the Maintainer field).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/
Reply to: