Re: Maintainer responsible for or only doing maintenance?
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Today I find the Maintainer field a joke.
Both the Maintainer and Uploaders fields are less than useful for a
number of reasons:
They are tied to the source package, this is bad because people's
commitment to and responsiblity for packages changes over time
independent of source package uploads.
They are not sufficient to represent reality. While we have some
definition in, there are many different styles of maintainership and
different levels of commitment.
I would like to see Debian get rid of the Maintainer and Uploaders
fields and instead implement something like DEP-2 where we have a list
of people, what they are willing to work on and the things they are
willing to do.
For example, as a Debian member with upload privelidges who is part of
the games team I could specify that I am willing to fix RC bugs in all
packages with Section: games, sponsor updates for packages in Section:
games, sponsor new uploads when the meet QA criteria X, am upstream
for chromium-bsu and am willing to deal with bugs filed against iotop.
People in the security team might say they are willing to fix bugs
tagged security on any package in the archive, except for web browser
In this way we will get a much more realistic picture of the
commitment of the Debian community to the software that we are
shipping. Registering this level of detail might not be something
individuals are willing to do though.