On 1/12/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
The Maintainer and Uploaders would certainly be a team,
but one with a team leader. Today we have teams
with no formal leader.
That's just the way Debian works!
--
Arnaud Vandyck
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> *Also because it would make the danger of bit-rot visible.
>
> English problem here, I don't understand this sentence :'(
I mean that there will be a visible difference between these cases:
(a) A package that has gone a long time without activity because it works
well, an
On 1/12/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> As you mentionned, a lot of packages does not need a lot of attention.
> Why do you want to orphan a package that could be just here because a
> lot of people use it and it does not need upload!
*Because at a certain po
>> Stefan hasn't retired.
>
> I take his statement to mean that he has stopped maintaining those
> packages,
> and no longer wishes to be a co-maintainer.
>
>> but just does not have the time at the moment.
When I was preparing a new upload of BCEL I asked Stefan if he would like
me to remove his
Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> 1. you say twice in your email that Debian has a Java quality issue. Can
> you please be more specific, I don't understand which issue(s) you're
> aiming at?
One more thing: Don't get me wrong, there are many parts of the Java effort
that are very well maintained, su
Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> 1. you say twice in your email that Debian has a Java quality issue. Can
> you please be more specific,
Yes, I can give examples, but not until next week though. It has to do with
bugs, even important ones, not getting attention. For a quick idea, look at
the history
Hi Marcus,
I'd like to raise three things:
1. you say twice in your email that Debian has a Java quality issue. Can
you please be more specific, I don't understand which issue(s) you're
aiming at?
2. perhaps a step to make those issues visible and more easily
"addressable" by the "pkg-java" team
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> As you mentionned, a lot of packages does not need a lot of attention.
> Why do you want to orphan a package that could be just here because a
> lot of people use it and it does not need upload!
*Because at a certain point it will need attention, perhaps urgently, and
then
On 1/9/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stefan Gybas wrote:
>> The Maintainer has ultimate responsibility for the package,
> What if this person becomes MIA?
One of the Uploaders will notice and take over the package and replace the
Maintainer, which would be an improvement over the
[Paul Cager]
> Would this still allow us to get a package overview for all of the
> packages owned by the team:
Yes. The summary will include all team maintained packages as long as
the list is listed as maintainer or uploader.
Friendly,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Marcus Better wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest we adopt the same scheme used by the Perl team [1]:
> Maintainer = the main _person_ responsible for the package
> Uploaders = the team mailing list + members who actually care for the
> package (who have touched it in the past, for example).
>
Wo
Stefan Gybas wrote:
>> The Maintainer has ultimate responsibility for the package,
> What if this person becomes MIA?
One of the Uploaders will notice and take over the package and replace the
Maintainer, which would be an improvement over the current situation.
If nobody steps forward the packa
Marcus Better wrote:
> The Maintainer has ultimate responsibility for the package, so there is
> someone to blame if the package rots. :-)
What if this person becomes MIA? We then know (better) who to blame but
the situations does not improve compared to now.
I'm listed as uploader in serveral p
Marcus Better wrote:
> Isn't it possible to get bug reports forwarded automatically to the
> mailing list anyway?
Apparently the mailing list can be subscribed to the PTS. I guess someone
has to do it manually for each package though.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I believe this is a bad idea, because only the maintainer get the bug
> reports by default, and I believe the entire team should get a message
> when new bugs arrive.
An even bigger problem is that nobody gets the bug reports in person now.
Uploaders are supposed to su
[Marcus Better]
> I suggest we adopt the same scheme used by the Perl team [1]:
> Maintainer = the main _person_ responsible for the package
> Uploaders = the team mailing list + members who actually care for the
> package (who have touched it in the past, for example).
I believe this is
Hi,
in light of discussions [1, 2] about the best way to manage Maintainer and
Uploaders fields, I suggest we introduce a minor change, with the goal of
improving quality and minimising bit rot.
The problem is, in short, that a package may go without attention because
uploaders don't feel respons
17 matches
Mail list logo
