Re: multiple uploaders
2015-06-02 2:33 GMT+02:00 Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com: I don't think I have any new input to add to this discussion. The majority of participants seem to think that the two uploaders rule is not useful as it hinders the adoption of new packages. While, I found this a desirable property, I also realize that the majority disagrees. In the end, dropping the rule probably won't make much of a difference anyways, because it is hardly enforced. So I'm okay with dropping it as an act to align rules with reality. So this mean 2nd uploader rule is dropped now? mira ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2015, 20:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: For me the team has become an umbrella for multimedia packages where we help each other in case its needed (RC bugs for example) in a more sensible way than mininmal diffs for an NMU. ^ this. - Fabian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 2015-05-31 08:58:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Any idea how to determine clearly no longer maintained? I think the 2-maintainers rule was intended to provide a way to demarcate that line, but it didn't fulfill its promise. Because the rule isn't enforced properly. I'd rather argue to take the Maintainer field more seriously, that is, for packages that are taken care of by a single person to have that person in that field, or if such a person cannot be found, orphan the package properly. I don't think that it isn't enforced properly. I think that large parts of the team just moved on over the last year or two. If at all, there are maybe a handfull of the hundred packages that are maintained by more than a single person. (And fwiw, just saying yay, count me in as Uploader and adding yourself as second Uploader doesn't make a package team maintained). So if we take the Maintainer more seriously, almost every package in team ends up with one maintainer. For me the team has become an umbrella for multimedia packages where we help each other in case its needed (RC bugs for example) in a more sensible way than mininmal diffs for an NMU. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 31 May 2015 at 19:36, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote: IMO, if there is no need for team commitment, then there is no need for the package to be under team maintenance in the first place. In this case, it really doesn't matter if the package has a dedicated maintainer or a team with a single uploader in the field. I disagree. There is a large range of options between fully active on package maintenance and don't even look at the package. As Fabian says, we do comment on each others bugs from time to time even if we are not formally tied to each package. I have received useful feedback on plenty of bugs. I have tried to provide same when possible and time permits. When I have more time, I look at the commits list and see if something could be improved, even if I have nothing to do with the package. I have even investigated bugs on packages that I am not an Uploader in. I would certainly do no such thing for packages not in the team umbrella, because: 1. I already have enough lists to subscribe to yet another one 2. By being a member of the team, there is an implicit ack to the idea of receiving unsolicited feedback from others, which is not the case otherwise. Last, but not least, having the package in the team makes it easier to solicit feedback (even if it does not come as readily as one would hope sometimes). I conclude the barriers to cross-contributions are greatly reduced by just having related packages in a single team. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
Hi Reinhard, Just answering this unanswered question from the thread as I have nothing more (worth adding) to the rest. And everyone is probably tired :-) On 06/01/2015 12:36 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Can I suggest that for new packages: 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the team are happy to bring in the new package 2. there is an attempt to find someone else to also love the package? It seems to me that the current rule already implements exactly that. Can you elaborate how this would look like in practice, and how your suggestions is different? I think we are mixing 1 2 up, and they should be separate steps. That is, if the team accepts a new package is is best if there is more than one uploader, but not mandatory. Uh? Are you suggesting to send two emails instead of one? Please clarify, I'm having a hard time with understanding your suggestion here. I think there are already two emails. The ITP states that someone wants to package something, and that they would like it to be maintained under the multimedia umbrella. We would just need to pay attention to that email and chime in with an excellent/go for it, or a I think we already have enough. Then the one preparing the package does not need to be worried about pushing to the repo. It can always be deleted later anyway. At the point where the package is ready for review, or ready for upload (for the more experienced in the team), the usual question can be asked if there are others interested in paying closer attention to the package. Cheers, Ross signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On Jun 1, 2015 7:11 AM, Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org wrote: On 31 May 2015 at 19:36, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote: IMO, if there is no need for team commitment, then there is no need for the package to be under team maintenance in the first place. In this case, it really doesn't matter if the package has a dedicated maintainer or a team with a single uploader in the field. I disagree. There is a large range of options between fully active on package maintenance and don't even look at the package. As Fabian says, we do comment on each others bugs from time to time even if we are not formally tied to each package. I have received useful feedback on plenty of bugs. I have tried to provide same when possible and time permits. When I have more time, I look at the commits list and see if something could be improved, even if I have nothing to do with the package. I have even investigated bugs on packages that I am not an Uploader in. I would certainly do no such thing for packages not in the team umbrella, because: 1. I already have enough lists to subscribe to yet another one 2. By being a member of the team, there is an implicit ack to the idea of receiving unsolicited feedback from others, which is not the case otherwise. Last, but not least, having the package in the team makes it easier to solicit feedback (even if it does not come as readily as one would hope sometimes). I conclude the barriers to cross-contributions are greatly reduced by just having related packages in a single team. Thank you and Fabian for detailing your positions so clearly. Apparently has already grown quite big, and the addition of a package to the the team has become only a small increment in the demand of team resources. I count Fabian's suggestion to categorize our team packages as indication for that. Felipe, generalizing your line of argumentation, we should put all packages in Debian in a single team, and have all bugs go to a common mailing list that everyone reads. I believe there even is a mailing list for that. This clearly doesn't scale, but what is a reasonable limit? I have the impression that we are already way past that limit, and we have entered a mode of operation that the Debian QA team does for orphaned packages. I don't think I have any new input to add to this discussion. The majority of participants seem to think that the two uploaders rule is not useful as it hinders the adoption of new packages. While, I found this a desirable property, I also realize that the majority disagrees. In the end, dropping the rule probably won't make much of a difference anyways, because it is hardly enforced. So I'm okay with dropping it as an act to align rules with reality. Thanks to everyone who provided input on this topic! Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On Jun 1, 2015 1:35 AM, Fabian Greffrath fab...@debian.org wrote: And by the current rule, would libav still qualify as being pkg-multimedia team-maintained? I would say yes: Most recently, Sebastian has not only provided commits, but even uploaded several packages to both unstable and stable-security. So to me, libav qualifies both by the two-uploaders rule as well as my gut impression of the level of contributions from multiple people. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
Hi Ross, On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gammon r...@the-gammons.net wrote: On 05/31/2015 02:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Well, it really boils down what we want the team's reputation to be. The rule tests whether or not there is *team* commitment, and for that you need *more than one person* actively caring for a package. If a package fails the two active uploaders test, how can you argue that the package was team maintained? Hi Reinhard, I agree in principle. But for me, having two uploaders does not test if there is team commitment. I see two ways how to interpret this sentiment: a) the check is not strict enough, and misses many too many situations were the package needs help b) the check is too strict, and catches too many actively team maintained packages that do have commitment. Reading through the comments so far, I don't think you had a) in mind, but rather b). Please correct me if I'm wrong. It just makes sure that there is more than one person taking care of the package. Which is the point of team maintenance, isn't it? And this is probably more important for the high profile packages than for some of the more obscure ones. I think it also helps prevent a new team member getting something sponsored into the team, and then running away. If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point. How can you determine team commitment if only a single person is working on the package? How is this better than having the package not team maintained? When a package gets behind, it is usually because the uploader(s) is/are a bit busy. The team should notice this on the QA page/dashboard and ping the uploader(s) on the list to see what the problem is. If they are temporarily busy, maybe they would be happy with a Team Upload by someone else? How is that different to a NMU? This is not meant to be a rant, it is just how I have observed some of the other packaging teams operating in Debian. I think Debian already has way too many QA Teams. I'd rather see packaging teams that are responsive and don't just use the team as an easy way to divert responsibility. Can I suggest that for new packages: 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the team are happy to bring in the new package 2. there is an attempt to find someone else to also love the package? It seems to me that the current rule already implements exactly that. Can you elaborate how this would look like in practice, and how your suggestions is different? I would be happy to try and draft a tweak to the policy if there was consensus (including some guidelines). Maybe we could first clarify why the current rule was useless. Is it that too many packages violate that rule? This can be fixed with two means: relaxing the rule, or enforcing it. It appears to me that people might argue that it is not strict enough, but I'd suggest that we first focus on enforcing the rules. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 05/31/2015 07:55 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Hi Ross, [...] Quick response! I agree in principle. But for me, having two uploaders does not test if there is team commitment. I see two ways how to interpret this sentiment: a) the check is not strict enough, and misses many too many situations were the package needs help b) the check is too strict, and catches too many actively team maintained packages that do have commitment. Reading through the comments so far, I don't think you had a) in mind, but rather b). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Neither a, or b :-) It just makes sure that there is more than one person taking care of the package. Which is the point of team maintenance, isn't it? Yes. And this is probably more important for the high profile packages than for some of the more obscure ones. I think it also helps prevent a new team member getting something sponsored into the team, and then running away. If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point. How can you determine team commitment if only a single person is working on the package? How is this better than having the package not team maintained? I would say that if only one person has been uploading a package over a period of years and doing a good job, there is no need for team commitment because everything is fine. The team commitment comes if that person needs help at some point (technically or due to lack of time). When a package gets behind, it is usually because the uploader(s) is/are a bit busy. The team should notice this on the QA page/dashboard and ping the uploader(s) on the list to see what the problem is. If they are temporarily busy, maybe they would be happy with a Team Upload by someone else? How is that different to a NMU? Only the changelog entry is different, and there is a series of commits in the repo instead of a diff attached to a bug. [...] I think Debian already has way too many QA Teams. I'd rather see packaging teams that are responsive and don't just use the team as an easy way to divert responsibility. Agreed. But I haven't seen examples of that (diversion of responsibility) yet myself. Can I suggest that for new packages: 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the team are happy to bring in the new package 2. there is an attempt to find someone else to also love the package? It seems to me that the current rule already implements exactly that. Can you elaborate how this would look like in practice, and how your suggestions is different? I think we are mixing 1 2 up, and they should be separate steps. That is, if the team accepts a new package is is best if there is more than one uploader, but not mandatory. I would be happy to try and draft a tweak to the policy if there was consensus (including some guidelines). Maybe we could first clarify why the current rule was useless. Is it that too many packages violate that rule? This can be fixed with two means: relaxing the rule, or enforcing it. It appears to me that people might argue that it is not strict enough, but I'd suggest that we first focus on enforcing the rules. I don't think anyone thinks it is useless. Everyone is probably happy to abide by it if required. I only felt the need to write something because I have observed IOhannes, Jaromir and Ruben have trouble introducing new packages recently because no-one quickly jumped in to be a second uploader. IOhannes stated in his recent ITP that he would push it to collab-maint if no-one came forward. This is a little sad if it is an obvious mutimedia application. I know IOhannes would take good care of the package wherever it is. And I guess there would be someone in the team that would help out if required. Someone else stated earlier in the thread that allowing the odd package to have one uploader every now an then also allows room for new contributors to come in and look for packages to assist with. If all packages have a token second uploader, it looks to a new person like there is nothing left. I hope that helps clarify things. Regards, Ross signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 05/31/2015 02:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Well, it really boils down what we want the team's reputation to be. The rule tests whether or not there is *team* commitment, and for that you need *more than one person* actively caring for a package. If a package fails the two active uploaders test, how can you argue that the package was team maintained? Hi Reinhard, I agree in principle. But for me, having two uploaders does not test if there is team commitment. It just makes sure that there is more than one person taking care of the package. And this is probably more important for the high profile packages than for some of the more obscure ones. I think it also helps prevent a new team member getting something sponsored into the team, and then running away. If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point. When a package gets behind, it is usually because the uploader(s) is/are a bit busy. The team should notice this on the QA page/dashboard and ping the uploader(s) on the list to see what the problem is. If they are temporarily busy, maybe they would be happy with a Team Upload by someone else? This is not meant to be a rant, it is just how I have observed some of the other packaging teams operating in Debian. Can I suggest that for new packages: 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the team are happy to bring in the new package 2. there is an attempt to find someone else to also love the package? I would be happy to try and draft a tweak to the policy if there was consensus (including some guidelines). Cheers, Ross signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ross Gammon r...@the-gammons.net wrote: If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point. How can you determine team commitment if only a single person is working on the package? How is this better than having the package not team maintained? I would say that if only one person has been uploading a package over a period of years and doing a good job, there is no need for team commitment because everything is fine. The team commitment comes if that person needs help at some point (technically or due to lack of time). Thanks for clarifying your position, this is where I clearly disagree. IMO, if there is no need for team commitment, then there is no need for the package to be under team maintenance in the first place. In this case, it really doesn't matter if the package has a dedicated maintainer or a team with a single uploader in the field. What does matter (at least to me) is the reputation of the team: A team that groups a large amount of packages that are maintained by individuals seems less than ideal. I'd like to see pkg-multimedia as a team of people that collaborate, proactively help out, and learn from each other. IME this only works if people actually look at each others work, which in our case means subscribing to the commit mailing list and actually looking at the commits. However, pkg-multimedia has already have grown too big for that, meaning, it is impossible to follow all of the teams work. Therefore, we need to compromise. But I'd still love to think that pkg-multimedia is still a responsive and reliable team that works together! When a package gets behind, it is usually because the uploader(s) is/are a bit busy. The team should notice this on the QA page/dashboard and ping the uploader(s) on the list to see what the problem is. If they are temporarily busy, maybe they would be happy with a Team Upload by someone else? How is that different to a NMU? Only the changelog entry is different, and there is a series of commits in the repo instead of a diff attached to a bug. Oh, I think I see what you are saying: Pushing commits to a git repository is easier than sending it to a bugreport? Hm, I think I can follow that line of thought somehow: Basically, the argument is that having an orphaned package that is team maintained is easier to work on than a package that has a dedicated maintainer because of the rules that the Debian Policy applies to NMUs: You have to file a bug with a patch, figure out with what delay to upload, etc. If that's the point, then this workaround feels to me like admitting defeat to the Debian NMU rules. I think Debian already has way too many QA Teams. I'd rather see packaging teams that are responsive and don't just use the team as an easy way to divert responsibility. Agreed. But I haven't seen examples of that (diversion of responsibility) yet myself. Oh, I think this can be seen all the time with packages that have a team in the maintainer field, but nobody feels responsible for it. Can I suggest that for new packages: 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the team are happy to bring in the new package 2. there is an attempt to find someone else to also love the package? It seems to me that the current rule already implements exactly that. Can you elaborate how this would look like in practice, and how your suggestions is different? I think we are mixing 1 2 up, and they should be separate steps. That is, if the team accepts a new package is is best if there is more than one uploader, but not mandatory. Uh? Are you suggesting to send two emails instead of one? Please clarify, I'm having a hard time with understanding your suggestion here. I would be happy to try and draft a tweak to the policy if there was consensus (including some guidelines). Maybe we could first clarify why the current rule was useless. Is it that too many packages violate that rule? This can be fixed with two means: relaxing the rule, or enforcing it. It appears to me that people might argue that it is not strict enough, but I'd suggest that we first focus on enforcing the rules. I don't think anyone thinks it is useless. Uhm: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2015-May/044558.html Everyone is probably happy to abide by it if required. I only felt the need to write something because I have observed IOhannes, Jaromir and Ruben have trouble introducing new packages recently because no-one quickly jumped in to be a second uploader. IOhannes stated in his recent ITP that he would push it to collab-maint if no-one came forward. This is a little sad if it is an obvious mutimedia application. If IOhannes is the only one working on the package, then collab-maint seems to me the better place to be honest. I know IOhannes would take good care of the package wherever it is. And I
Re: multiple uploaders
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2015-06-01 00:36:32) On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ross Gammon r...@the-gammons.net wrote: If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point. How can you determine team commitment if only a single person is working on the package? How is this better than having the package not team maintained? I would say that if only one person has been uploading a package over a period of years and doing a good job, there is no need for team commitment because everything is fine. The team commitment comes if that person needs help at some point (technically or due to lack of time). Thanks for clarifying your position, this is where I clearly disagree. IMO, if there is no need for team commitment, then there is no need for the package to be under team maintenance in the first place. In this case, it really doesn't matter if the package has a dedicated maintainer or a team with a single uploader in the field. What does matter (at least to me) is the reputation of the team: A team that groups a large amount of packages that are maintained by individuals seems less than ideal. I'd like to see pkg-multimedia as a team of people that collaborate, proactively help out, and learn from each other. IME this only works if people actually look at each others work, which in our case means subscribing to the commit mailing list and actually looking at the commits. However, pkg-multimedia has already have grown too big for that, meaning, it is impossible to follow all of the teams work. Therefore, we need to compromise. But I'd still love to think that pkg-multimedia is still a responsive and reliable team that works together! I agree with Reinhard here. When a package gets behind, it is usually because the uploader(s) is/are a bit busy. The team should notice this on the QA page/dashboard and ping the uploader(s) on the list to see what the problem is. If they are temporarily busy, maybe they would be happy with a Team Upload by someone else? How is that different to a NMU? Only the changelog entry is different, and there is a series of commits in the repo instead of a diff attached to a bug. Oh, I think I see what you are saying: Pushing commits to a git repository is easier than sending it to a bugreport? Hm, I think I can follow that line of thought somehow: Basically, the argument is that having an orphaned package that is team maintained is easier to work on than a package that has a dedicated maintainer because of the rules that the Debian Policy applies to NMUs: You have to file a bug with a patch, figure out with what delay to upload, etc. If that's the point, then this workaround feels to me like admitting defeat to the Debian NMU rules. If you want to maintain a package on your own yet make it easy for others to help out, then add yourself to https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu - 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: signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
Am Sonntag, den 31.05.2015, 08:58 -0400 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: If the majority of the packages in team pkg-multimedia are effectively taken care of by a single person, how is that package simply not team maintained at all? Not yet. As it stands, the rule already applies to the first upload of a package into Debian. If you don't find another uploader in the time frame between ITP and first upload, the package has no change to be in the team. Which is sad. I often get interested in packages after having used them and realized their value. Having to move the package around from collab-maint for the mere reason of adding myself as an uploader sounds like an unnecessary entrance burden to me. Also, being team-maintained although there is (currently) only one active maintainer has another advantage: You get your bugs reported to the list and thus exposed to more eyes. I often find myself reading through bug reports for packages that I am totally not affiliated with and tring to share my opinion. So, if your package is team-maintained, although if you are the only active uploader, doesn't mean you are on your own. There are always some more eyes looking at the package. At least there is a higher chance to. I think we should group packages in pkg-multimedia by context rather than by number of active uploaders. If it is multimedia-related, it should be in the team. I find this more honest than a second uploader half-heartedly adding himself to debian/control just to get things proceeding. And by the current rule, would libav still qualify as being pkg-multimedia team-maintained? - Fabian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
2015-05-27 9:26 GMT+02:00 Fabian Greffrath fab...@debian.org: Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. I agree, let's drop the rule. It makes it considerably harder to get a package into the archive in the first place, but the Debian archive is exactly the place where the interest of potential Co-Uploaders can be risen. Is there any consensus on this topic already? 2nd uploader rule changed to suggestion? I asked 2nd uploader for giada recently I would upload than ;) regards mira ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org wrote: On 26 May 2015 at 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher sramac...@debian.org wrote: On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: hmm, nobody ever answered to this email. mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of that, and i would like to re-ask: How much do we want to enforce our =2 uploaders per package rule? If a package does not have a 2nd uploader (any longer), should it be removed from the team (e.g. after some grace period)? I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I have been thinking we should ditch the rule as well. I think having a common home (even if a single maintainers is currently active) should make it easier for third-parties interested in multimedia to collaborate, and that may as well mean co-maintaining previously singly-maintained packages. Plus, many packages do not require much activity anyway. Well, it really boils down what we want the team's reputation to be. The rule tests whether or not there is *team* commitment, and for that you need *more than one person* actively caring for a package. If a package fails the two active uploaders test, how can you argue that the package was team maintained? If the majority of the packages in team pkg-multimedia are effectively taken care of by a single person, how is that package simply not team maintained at all? I'd argue it is worse, because missing maintainers and defacto orphaned packages are harder to identify. If this is to become the norm, I'd argue to rather put the Debian QA Team as maintainer of the package. Do we really want team pkg-multimedia to become another Debian QA Team with focus on multimedia packages? I would find that rather sad and for sure would love pkg-multimedia to have, and maintain, a better reputation than that. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. Any idea how to determine clearly no longer maintained? I think the 2-maintainers rule was intended to provide a way to demarcate that line, but it didn't fulfill its promise. Because the rule isn't enforced properly. I'd rather argue to take the Maintainer field more seriously, that is, for packages that are taken care of by a single person to have that person in that field, or if such a person cannot be found, orphan the package properly. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
2015-05-27 9:26 GMT+02:00 Fabian Greffrath fab...@debian.org: Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. I agree, let's drop the rule. It makes it considerably harder to get a package into the archive in the first place, but the Debian archive is exactly the place where the interest of potential Co-Uploaders can be risen. I agree. Probably keeping the rule as a recommendation instead would make sense. Cheers, Balint ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. I agree, let's drop the rule. It makes it considerably harder to get a package into the archive in the first place, but the Debian archive is exactly the place where the interest of potential Co-Uploaders can be risen. - Fabian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Fabian Greffrath fab...@debian.org wrote: Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. ACK from me. Cheers! -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer| quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 26 May 2015 at 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher sramac...@debian.org wrote: On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: hmm, nobody ever answered to this email. mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of that, and i would like to re-ask: How much do we want to enforce our =2 uploaders per package rule? If a package does not have a 2nd uploader (any longer), should it be removed from the team (e.g. after some grace period)? I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I have been thinking we should ditch the rule as well. I think having a common home (even if a single maintainers is currently active) should make it easier for third-parties interested in multimedia to collaborate, and that may as well mean co-maintaining previously singly-maintained packages. Plus, many packages do not require much activity anyway. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. Any idea how to determine clearly no longer maintained? I think the 2-maintainers rule was intended to provide a way to demarcate that line, but it didn't fulfill its promise. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
hmm, nobody ever answered to this email. mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of that, and i would like to re-ask: How much do we want to enforce our =2 uploaders per package rule? If a package does not have a 2nd uploader (any longer), should it be removed from the team (e.g. after some grace period)? If I (intend to) maintain a package that I think fits well under the pkg-multimedia umbrella (in my case, e.g. a puredata related package) but do not find a co-uploader immediately (e.g. see my recent pd-iemtab ITP), should I go solo instead? mfgasdr IOhannes On 2014-11-08 14:53, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: due to a few recent mails [1], i was wondering how much we (would like to) enforce our 2 uploaders per package rule. i know of at least one package i maintain under the hood of pkg-multimedia-maintainers, which has only a single uploader (me, obviously). soundscaperenderer is anybody interested in co-maintaining it (uses CDBS)? or should i remove this package from the team? mgfsadr IOhannes [1] at least http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2014-November/041903.html; but i seem to remember another similar email as well. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: hmm, nobody ever answered to this email. mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of that, and i would like to re-ask: How much do we want to enforce our =2 uploaders per package rule? If a package does not have a 2nd uploader (any longer), should it be removed from the team (e.g. after some grace period)? I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: multiple uploaders
On 2015-05-26 09:49:43, Felipe Sateler wrote: On 26 May 2015 at 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher sramac...@debian.org wrote: On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: hmm, nobody ever answered to this email. mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of that, and i would like to re-ask: How much do we want to enforce our =2 uploaders per package rule? If a package does not have a 2nd uploader (any longer), should it be removed from the team (e.g. after some grace period)? I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on Uploaders and both are MIA. I have been thinking we should ditch the rule as well. I think having a common home (even if a single maintainers is currently active) should make it easier for third-parties interested in multimedia to collaborate, and that may as well mean co-maintaining previously singly-maintained packages. Plus, many packages do not require much activity anyway. ACK I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team cares about them anymore. Any idea how to determine clearly no longer maintained? I think the 2-maintainers rule was intended to provide a way to demarcate that line, but it didn't fulfill its promise. That's the hard part. From time to time I look at the open RC bugs and check grep-excuses Debian Multimedia Team to look for packages which haven't migrated for some months. This method doesn't catch packages that aren't RC-buggy, but it's a start. One could probably script something using UDD: check for packages that are team maintained but haven't had an upload in, say, two years. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
multiple uploaders
due to a few recent mails [1], i was wondering how much we (would like to) enforce our 2 uploaders per package rule. i know of at least one package i maintain under the hood of pkg-multimedia-maintainers, which has only a single uploader (me, obviously). soundscaperenderer is anybody interested in co-maintaining it (uses CDBS)? or should i remove this package from the team? mgfsadr IOhannes [1] at least http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2014-November/041903.html; but i seem to remember another similar email as well. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
