[NB Not discussing whether the feature should have been enabled by default, but whether that should be changed now that it _is_ enabled]
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 20:56 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > (Replying to correct cloned BR for second issue.) > > On Monday 07 April 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > > Frans Pop wrote: > > > + Set to NMU if packager is neither in Uploaders nor Maintainer > > > > > > This has already proven to be incorrect for me today in two cases. > > > - Team maintained D-I packages are frequently uploaded by a team member > > > who's not listed as Uploader, mostly in the case of pre-release > > > uploads for translation updates. These uploads are not NMUs. > > > > They are as team maintainers who upload should be in Uploaders or change > > the default if they really don't want to be in Uploaders AFAICS... > > Where is the policy rule that says they _must_ be listed in uploaders? It's a "should" in policy (5.6.3). However I don't think that's necessarily an argument against the functionality. Policy's use of "should" to refer to conventions where non-conformance is (in general) a (non-wishlist, non-RC) bug doesn't imply that tools shouldn't default to assuming that those conventions will be followed, imho. (ugh, too many negatives and too little punctuation). > The overhead of maintaining that for D-I would be huge for no benefit at > all, especially as being listed in uploaders in no longer required for bugs > being closed. > > We prefer to have the regular, primary maintainers listed in Uploaders and > thus keep relatively usable QA pages for our team members. Other teams has > chosen to include everybody and their ponies in Uploaders. Both are valid > choices IMO. They are both valid, of course. I suspect that the d-i team's method is less common than the alternative method, but would be happy to be proved wrong. > > > - I wanted to do a testbuild for a patch for wireless-tools and ran > > > dch to increase the version number so I could later run debdiff to get > > > the patch. As the intention is not to NMU the package, having that set > > > in the changelog is just silly. > > > > No, it's not as you might accidently upload the package. Besides you're > > changing things in the package as a non-maintainer, so it's a sane > > default IMHO. > > IMO it is not as it introduces cruft in the changelog I have not asked for. > The NMU line should only be added when one actually intends to _do_ and NMU. > I have in the past included changelog changes in a bug I submitted if I > considered having a correct changelog entry an important part of the patch. > Now I can no longer do that as easily. Personally, when I receive a patch which includes a changelog stanza I've never been concerned whether that stanza claims to be for an NMU of the package or just for a local version. In either case, I'm unlikely to just apply the changelog change as-is. There's a clear difference between "here's a patch that I intend to include in an NMU" and "here's a patch that happens to include a changelog stanza marking it as an NMU", IMHO. [...] > I forsee that the D-I team will see incorrect uploads (NMUs that should be > regular uploads) because of this change and therefore request that the old > behavior be made default. Has this actually happened (as yet)? Cheers, Adam -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
