On 12-02-19 at 08:44am, David Bremner wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:15:19 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> > 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
Description: Digital signature
