Teams in changelog trailers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Teams in changelog trailers

Jakub Wilk-4
Now that we have a concept of a “team upload”[0], I'd like to have
putting team's name in the changelog trailer officially deprecated.

This would:
1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;
2) help to avoid situations where (inadvertently) no human name is
mentioned in a changelog entry at all.

What do others think?


[0] Developer's Reference §5.11.7
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu-team-upload

--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120218140850.GA5627@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Kumar Appaiah-2
Hi.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 03:08:50PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Now that we have a concept of a “team upload”[0], I'd like to have
> putting team's name in the changelog trailer officially deprecated.
>
> This would:
> 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;

To be very pedantic, the signature on the last upload should reveal
this, right?

> 2) help to avoid situations where (inadvertently) no human name is
> mentioned in a changelog entry at all.
>
> What do others think?

One problem arises if the last person who "made" the upload (in case
it was sponsored) does not put his/her name. I just wish to know what
other situations where having just team uploads makes life harder.

Thanks.

Kumar
--
Footnotes are for things you believe don't really belong in LDP manuals,
but want to include anyway.
                -- Joel N. Weber II discussing the 'make' chapter of LPG


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120218151321.GA4081@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Cyril Brulebois-4
Kumar Appaiah <[hidden email]> (18/02/2012):
> > This would:
> > 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;
>
> To be very pedantic, the signature on the last upload should reveal
> this, right?

Not if the team upload is prepared by someone who then gets sponsored by
a DD (or a DM from the relevant team).

Mraw,
KiBi.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Julien Cristau-6
In reply to this post by Jakub Wilk-4
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 15:08:50 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:

> What do others think?
>
Yes please.

Cheers,
Julien

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Stefano Zacchiroli
In reply to this post by Jakub Wilk-4
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 03:08:50PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Now that we have a concept of a “team upload”[0], I'd like to have
> putting team's name in the changelog trailer officially deprecated.
>
> This would:
> 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;
> 2) help to avoid situations where (inadvertently) no human name is
> mentioned in a changelog entry at all.
>
> What do others think?

Agreed.

It'd be nice if debbugs could understand "[ Debian Developer ]" lines
and give credit to the appropriate individuals when closing bugs
mentioned in changelogs. But I understand that's not entirely trivial to
do, and I don't consider that to be enough of a reason to keep around
hard to attribute changelog entries.

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 »

signature.asc (845 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Axel Beckert-8
In reply to this post by Jakub Wilk-4
Hi,

Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Now that we have a concept of a “team upload”[0], I'd like to have
> putting team's name in the changelog trailer officially deprecated.

Seconded.

                Regards, Axel
--
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <[hidden email]>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Alessio Treglia via nm
In reply to this post by Jakub Wilk-4
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jakub Wilk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;
> 2) help to avoid situations where (inadvertently) no human name is mentioned
> in a changelog entry at all.
>
> What do others think?

It would be very appropriate, in Debian Multimedia we already do so.

--
Alessio Treglia          | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer         | [hidden email]
Ubuntu Core Developer    | [hidden email]
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAMHuwox6ZsfWQCzTFGs5opASinKP=qvSQdvzxtActrR=CPaLeA@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Charles Plessy-12
In reply to this post by Stefano Zacchiroli
Le Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 05:51:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> It'd be nice if debbugs could understand "[ Debian Developer ]" lines
> and give credit to the appropriate individuals when closing bugs
> mentioned in changelogs. But I understand that's not entirely trivial to
> do, and I don't consider that to be enough of a reason to keep around
> hard to attribute changelog entries.

Hi Stefano,

If there is ambiguity about credit, perhaps the BTS boilerplate could be
amended to include a disclaimer that not all of it shall come to the uploader.

Recenlty, I have uploaded new packages with changelogs like the following.

  r-cran-proto (0.3-9.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
     * Team upload.
 
     [ Carlos Borroto ]
     * Initial release (Closes: #657994)
 
   -- Charles Plessy <[hidden email]>  Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:47:24 +0900

At first I worried that it would deprive Carlos from the credit of preparing
the package.  But in the end, I think that such a changelog clearly presents
the responsibilities, credit aside.  I am responsible for having uploaded the
package, and Carlos is responsible for making this packaging happen.

If the changelogs were about credit, what would be missing there would be the
contribution of the team to the packaging work of Carlos, and that would bring
us back putting the team's name in the changelog signature, which is not as
informative as having a human name.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120219005934.GA14694@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Kumar Appaiah-2
In reply to this post by Cyril Brulebois-4
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:24:39PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Kumar Appaiah <[hidden email]> (18/02/2012):
> > > This would:
> > > 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;
> >
> > To be very pedantic, the signature on the last upload should reveal
> > this, right?
>
> Not if the team upload is prepared by someone who then gets sponsored by
> a DD (or a DM from the relevant team).

In which case the sponsor of the upload is responsible for the upload,
right? The person signing and uploading is "responsible" for the
content of the upload, whether directly as the person who prepared the
upload or as someone who has checked what is being sponsored before
uploading it. The signer is taking responsibility, if I understand correctly.

Thanks.

Kumar
--
I've heard a Jew and a Muslim argue in a Damascus cafe with less passion
than the emacs wars."
                -- Ronald Florence <[hidden email]> in
                   <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120219020114.GB12144@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Kumar Appaiah-2
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 08:01:14PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:24:39PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Kumar Appaiah <[hidden email]> (18/02/2012):
> > > > This would:
> > > > 1) allow to always identify person responsible for a particular upload;
> > >
> > > To be very pedantic, the signature on the last upload should reveal
> > > this, right?
> >
> > Not if the team upload is prepared by someone who then gets sponsored by
> > a DD (or a DM from the relevant team).
>
> In which case the sponsor of the upload is responsible for the upload,
> right? The person signing and uploading is "responsible" for the
> content of the upload, whether directly as the person who prepared the
> upload or as someone who has checked what is being sponsored before
> uploading it. The signer is taking responsibility, if I understand correctly.

But pedantry aside, I am also for Jakub's original suggestion.

Kumar
--
I did this 'cause Linux gives me a woody.  It doesn't generate revenue.
                -- Dave '-ddt->` Taylor, announcing DOOM for Linux


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120219021329.GC12144@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Jonas Smedegaard
In reply to this post by Charles Plessy-12
On 12-02-19 at 09:59am, Charles Plessy wrote:

> Le Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 05:51:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> >
> > It'd be nice if debbugs could understand "[ Debian Developer ]"
> > lines and give credit to the appropriate individuals when closing
> > bugs mentioned in changelogs. But I understand that's not entirely
> > trivial to do, and I don't consider that to be enough of a reason to
> > keep around hard to attribute changelog entries.
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> If there is ambiguity about credit, perhaps the BTS boilerplate could
> be amended to include a disclaimer that not all of it shall come to
> the uploader.
>
> Recenlty, I have uploaded new packages with changelogs like the
> following.
>
>   r-cran-proto (0.3-9.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
>  
>      * Team upload.
>  
>      [ Carlos Borroto ]
>      * Initial release (Closes: #657994)
>  
>    -- Charles Plessy <[hidden email]>  Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:47:24 +0900
>
> At first I worried that it would deprive Carlos from the credit of
> preparing the package.  But in the end, I think that such a changelog
> clearly presents the responsibilities, credit aside.  I am responsible
> for having uploaded the package, and Carlos is responsible for making
> this packaging happen.
>
> If the changelogs were about credit, what would be missing there would
> be the contribution of the team to the packaging work of Carlos, and
> that would bring us back putting the team's name in the changelog
> signature, which is not as informative as having a human name.
I also use the style listing the contributor in square brackets and
myself at the final line, when releasing a package (fully or mostly) on
behalf of others - whether or not done in a team.

I understand that adding that "Team upload" statement silences lintian
when my name is not listed as maintainer or uploader, but is that not
all?  I fail to see other benefit than that, and I fail to understand
what other style is sensible than the above.

In other words, can someone please help post a concrete example of a
different changelog style than above, involving "Team upload" statement
so that I understand what is really discussed here?


Regards,

 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Simon McVittie-7
On 19/02/12 11:40, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> In other words, can someone please help post a concrete example of a
> different changelog style than above, involving "Team upload" statement
> so that I understand what is really discussed here?

Preconditions: minetest is maintained by the Games Team; I am a member
of the Games Team; I am not an Uploader for minetest. Suppose I want to
fix a bug in minetest, without taking future responsibility for the
package in general.

Good:

minetest (0.23-5) unstable; urgency=low

  * Team upload.
  * Fix crash when badgers consume mushrooms (Closes: #424242)

 -- Simon McVittie <[hidden email]>  Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:49:02 +0000

Bad:

minetest (0.23-5) unstable; urgency=low

  [ Simon McVittie ]
  * Fix crash when badgers consume mushrooms (Closes: #424242)

 -- Debian Games Team <[hidden email]>  Sun, 19
Feb 2012 11:49:02 +0000

I think this is the thing under discussion.

Regards,
    S


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4F40E2EB.2050503@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Jonas Smedegaard
On 12-02-19 at 11:54am, Simon McVittie wrote:

> On 19/02/12 11:40, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > In other words, can someone please help post a concrete example of a
> > different changelog style than above, involving "Team upload"
> > statement so that I understand what is really discussed here?
>
> Preconditions: minetest is maintained by the Games Team; I am a member
> of the Games Team; I am not an Uploader for minetest. Suppose I want
> to fix a bug in minetest, without taking future responsibility for the
> package in general.
>
> Good:
>
> minetest (0.23-5) unstable; urgency=low
>
>   * Team upload.
>   * Fix crash when badgers consume mushrooms (Closes: #424242)
>
>  -- Simon McVittie <[hidden email]>  Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:49:02 +0000
>
> Bad:
>
> minetest (0.23-5) unstable; urgency=low
>
>   [ Simon McVittie ]
>   * Fix crash when badgers consume mushrooms (Closes: #424242)
>
>  -- Debian Games Team <[hidden email]>  Sun, 19
> Feb 2012 11:49:02 +0000
>
> I think this is the thing under discussion.
Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I fully agree that we should get rid of such abomination!

In my opinion that final line should always match the uploader, which is
either a single individual or (for binNMU) a script.

Yes, In my opinion that goes for sponsoring too: The sponsor should add
herself/himself in the changelog to clearly advertise to the World whom
within the Debian web of trust proof-read and uploaded the packaging.


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

David Bremner-4
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:15:19 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yes, In my opinion that goes for sponsoring too: The sponsor should add
> herself/himself in the changelog to clearly advertise to the World whom
> within the Debian web of trust proof-read and uploaded the packaging.
>

Hi Jonas;

I understand the motivation, I think, of making sponsor responsibility
more clear. But I think in general it is more important that the sponsor
upload (or choose not to) a pristine package from the sponsoree.  This
avoids situations where the sponsoree somehow feels sabotaged by changes
after they last saw the package, and it also matches my understanding of
what the responsibility of sponsoring is: to act as a gatekeeper, but
not to promise any further maintenance of the package (other than
orphaning of the sponsoree goes MIA).  We have both sponsoring and
co-maintenance; there is no rule that says co-maintainers have have to
be DD/DMs.

One suggestion that came up on IRC was to have the PTS track the
"who-uploads" information to make it more convenient for non-developers
(or just lazy developers ;) ) to access, and more visible.

David




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx8f0z7u.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Jonas Smedegaard
On 12-02-19 at 08:44am, David Bremner wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:15:19 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, In my opinion that goes for sponsoring too: The sponsor should
> > add herself/himself in the changelog to clearly advertise to the
> > World whom within the Debian web of trust proof-read and uploaded
> > the packaging.
> >
>
> Hi Jonas;
>
> I understand the motivation, I think, of making sponsor responsibility
> more clear. But I think in general it is more important that the
> sponsor upload (or choose not to) a pristine package from the
> sponsoree.  This avoids situations where the sponsoree somehow feels
> sabotaged by changes after they last saw the package,
Obviously sponsors should not sabotage works of sponsorees.  Which
leaves the _feeling_ of sabotage.

I disagree that avoiding sponsorees _feeling_ sabotaged is more
important than documenting who in Debian changed something in Debian.


> and it also matches my understanding of what the responsibility of
> sponsoring is: to act as a gatekeeper, but not to promise any further
> maintenance of the package (other than orphaning of the sponsoree goes
> MIA).

The very act as gatekeeper is the responsibility I want more explicit.

(yes, I dislike the sponsoring system in general due to that lack of
responsibility inside Debian for the _maintainance_ of packages, but
that is a different issue: here I raise a concern only about visibility
of responsibility inside Debian in _releasing_ a package).

The key part is "inside Debian": We trust each other, but cannot trust
sponsorees (that's the whole reason for them needing a sponsor!), so
they need someone among us to take the responsibility on their behalf.  
I want that responsibility clearly stated.


> We have both sponsoring and co-maintenance; there is no rule that says
> co-maintainers have have to be DD/DMs.

Since only DD/DMs can upload co-maintained packages, same rule applies
there.

Or did I miss your point?


> One suggestion that came up on IRC was to have the PTS track the
> "who-uploads" information to make it more convenient for
> non-developers (or just lazy developers ;) ) to access, and more
> visible.

That argument has come up before.  It is nice that our online machinery
can infer such information.  I still find it much better to simply
require that the changelog entry reflects in its final line the Debian
entity responsible for the packaging release.


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Simon Chopin-3
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:21:10PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[snip]
> That argument has come up before.  It is nice that our online machinery
> can infer such information.  I still find it much better to simply
> require that the changelog entry reflects in its final line the Debian
> entity responsible for the packaging release.
It seems to me that the changelog is not the place for that information.
Its purpose is to document the changes made to the packaging, which is
totally orthogonal to whether it has been uploaded and by whom.

From a user POV, what matters is to know who made the changes. The chain
of trust that lead to the changes being accepted into the archive are
only useful for internal purposes, AFAICT, and thus should not be into
the package.

I think of this piece of info as something similar to the Ack-By: tags
in Git and such : it would not make sense to store it in the code
itself. And here, the whole debian/ directory is the code.

Regards,

Simon

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Jonas Smedegaard
On 12-02-19 at 04:03pm, Simon Chopin wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:21:10PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> [snip]
> > That argument has come up before.  It is nice that our online
> > machinery can infer such information.  I still find it much better
> > to simply require that the changelog entry reflects in its final
> > line the Debian entity responsible for the packaging release.
> It seems to me that the changelog is not the place for that
> information. Its purpose is to document the changes made to the
> packaging, which is totally orthogonal to whether it has been uploaded
> and by whom.
>
> From a user POV, what matters is to know who made the changes. The
> chain of trust that lead to the changes being accepted into the
> archive are only useful for internal purposes, AFAICT, and thus should
> not be into the package.
>
> I think of this piece of info as something similar to the Ack-By: tags
> in Git and such : it would not make sense to store it in the code
> itself. And here, the whole debian/ directory is the code.
...which brings us back to the topic of this thread:

Why then write "Team upload" in a changelog entry, if that space in
solely for documenting _changes_ and who made them, not who _finalized_
them (i.e. was responsible for their appearing into Debian)?


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Stefano Rivera-15
In reply to this post by Simon Chopin-3
Hi Simon (2012.02.19_17:03:17_+0200)
> It seems to me that the changelog is not the place for that information.
> Its purpose is to document the changes made to the packaging, which is
> totally orthogonal to whether it has been uploaded and by whom.

Uploading is a fairly important change in the packaging, and it's useful
to know who made the decision to upload. In the case of sponsored
uploads, that is the contributor that requested the upload, not
necessarily the person who made all the changes.

> The chain of trust that lead to the changes being accepted into the
> archive are only useful for internal purposes, AFAICT, and thus should
> not be into the package.

That's the GPG signature. It's not part of the changelog.

I often end up with:

 [Maintainer]
 * foo

 [Contributor]
 * Team Upload
 * bar

 -- Contributor <...> ...

which works well for me.

SR

--
Stefano Rivera
  http://tumbleweed.org.za/
  H: +27 21 465 6908 C: +27 72 419 8559  UCT: x3127


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120219151408.GO14465@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

David Bremner-5
In reply to this post by Jonas Smedegaard
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:21:10 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 12-02-19 at 08:44am, David Bremner wrote:
> > We have both sponsoring and co-maintenance; there is no rule that says
> > co-maintainers have have to be DD/DMs.
>
> Since only DD/DMs can upload co-maintained packages, same rule applies
> there.
>
> Or did I miss your point?

My point is/was that what you suggest sounds more like co-maintenance to
me. So, people who dislike the current sponsoring system (i.e. leaving
the sponsoree as the uploader in changelog) can co-maintain instead.

Maybe we are proposing the same set of actions, and just giving it
different names (your "improved sponsoring" is my "co-maintenance").

Obviously you are free to do what you like when you sponsor.  A
different, and more contentious point, is what the project should
prefer. Given the state of near-collapse (by ratio of requests to active
sponsors) of the sponsoring system, I would hesitate to impose too many
requirements the process. As we both know, one person's innocuous
requirement (e.g. let's all use dh7) is another persons reason to walk
away from an activity.

d


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obsu262b.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Teams in changelog trailers

Jonas Smedegaard
On 12-02-19 at 11:31am, David Bremner wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:21:10 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 12-02-19 at 08:44am, David Bremner wrote:
> > > We have both sponsoring and co-maintenance; there is no rule that
> > > says co-maintainers have have to be DD/DMs.
> >
> > Since only DD/DMs can upload co-maintained packages, same rule
> > applies there.
> >
> > Or did I miss your point?
>
> My point is/was that what you suggest sounds more like co-maintenance
> to me.
Ah (yes, I missed that point before!)


> So, people who dislike the current sponsoring system (i.e. leaving the
> sponsoree as the uploader in changelog) can co-maintain instead.
>
> Maybe we are proposing the same set of actions, and just giving it
> different names (your "improved sponsoring" is my "co-maintenance").
>
> Obviously you are free to do what you like when you sponsor.  A
> different, and more contentious point, is what the project should
> prefer. Given the state of near-collapse (by ratio of requests to
> active sponsors) of the sponsoring system, I would hesitate to impose
> too many requirements the process. As we both know, one person's
> innocuous requirement (e.g. let's all use dh7) is another persons
> reason to walk away from an activity.
As I tried to point out in a different post, my point here is *not* to
make sponsoring into co-maintainance (even if I personally encourage
that for anyone concreltey approaching me asking for sponsorship).

There is different styles of develpment, and there is the effect on
Debian as a whole.

Yes, it can be argued that CDBS is hurtful for Debian as a whole, but I
find that a weaker point than the one of the Debian member responsible
for an upload not being explicitly available t our users - only
implicitly possible to dig out of our logs somewhere and present
centralized at e.g. packages.qa.debian.org.


NB! Please do not cc me discretely - I am subscribed to this list (and
besides our [code of conduct] tells not to do so).


Regards,

 - Jonas


[code of conduct]: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
12