"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <mac...@opencsw.org> writes: > 2013/8/11 Peter FELECAN <pfele...@opencsw.org>: >> "Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <mac...@opencsw.org> writes: >> >>> 2013/8/11 Peter FELECAN <pfele...@opencsw.org>: >>>> To come back to my proposition, in which part of the code is the >>>> association made, i.e. uploader becomes maintainer? Answering this >>>> question can simplify my life instead of wandering all the surface of >>>> the system. >>> >>> The starting point is here: >>> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/browser/csw/mgar/gar/v2/gar.pkg.mk#L716 >>> >>> Every other bits of infrastructure read this pkginfo field. >> >> This I know. What I wish is to inhibit this, when supplying --nmu to >> csw-upload-pkg for an existing package. Where is this code situated? > > When you're running csw-upload-pkg, it's too late. All such > information must be inside the package, and that means it has to be > done in GAR. Probably as a field in pkginfo.
How's that? The association is not done yet. That this association is based on what's in the package I understand. What I don't understand is how it's too late: the association is made after the invocation of csw-upload-pkg and this can be inhibited in any system that I can imagine, directly or by side effect. Consequently, if you tell me where is the code responsible for the association I can review it and propose a concrete modification. >>> I want to ask this question. It might sound like a rhetorical one, but >>> it's not: it's one of the central questions to the discussion: >>> >>> Do you become the owner of the package because you are willing to take >>> on the owner's duties, or do you take on the owner's duties because >>> you've become the package owner? >> >> Neither when I'm doing a NMU. >> >> Now, let me ask a pragmatical question: what is the reason for which my >> proposition is not worthy of implementation? > > But it is! We only need to talk about some details. Good. We agree on this. > I think I understand the idea: you want to be able to contribute > without taking on other associated burden, right? This is definitely > worth implementing. Noted. > IIUC, the problem you're addressing is this: > > 1. When you upload a package, you become the package owner/maintainer. The systematic of this association is what's annoying me. > 2. A package owner/maintainer is responsible for everything that's > associated with the package, e.g. any current and future bugs. This is not axiomatic and is what I wish to reasonably relax. > 3. You have a small contribution to make. Quite often. If it's a maintained package I discuss it first with the relevant person. > 4. The benefit of the contribution does not outweigh the burden. Again, it's not a question of burden but responsible management. Dilution of responsibility is a very bad thing and is, unfortunately, encountered more and more often in enterprise environment. Lets not replicate that. > 5. Therefore, you do not make the contribution. Even with the incurred burden I make it. The proof is in the logs. > You think that #2 is fine and you want to fix #1. Not exactly. > I think that #1 is fine and I want to fix #2. We disagree on the "fineness" of #1 and this affirmation is in contradiction with the answer that you give to my question about the worthiness of my proposition. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.