On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:47:55PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote: > This is not entirely true: each one can choose to set maintainer as the team > or a "real person"; for example, take a look to every module I package[1] in > the team: the Maintainer field is always set to the team.
I see, that's very similar to how the Erlang team are doing it. > I think I'm not seeing the issue here: Maybe I misrepresented my self in the original email, I don't see a MAJOR issue with the status quo, nor do I feel that anything should be imposed on the existing teams. I was more hoping for feedback on the reasons for the subtly different ways of using the Maintainer/Uploaders fields within the context of a packaging team with a view to codifying some best practices. On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:40:53PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Di, 26 Aug 2008, Noah Slater wrote: > > Clearly some teams will organise differently, and that's fine, but it would > > be > > nice if we could agree a set of guidelines for using the > > Maintainer/Uploaders > > fields consistently across teams. > > I disagree. Teams work differently and thus the Maintainer/Uploader usage > differs. What is the problem. >From some of the private conversations I have had I am aware that some people >do not feel it is appropriate to list a team's email address in the Uploaders field under any circumstances and others probably feel the same way about the Maintainer field. Having some community guideline that says what is and isn't okay either way would be nice, even if it just says "do whatever." Best, -- Noah Slater, http://bytesexual.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
