On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 02:24:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:46:18AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Bill Allombert <bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:10:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > >> --- a/policy.sgml > > >> +++ b/policy.sgml > > >> @@ -1688,11 +1688,14 @@ > > >> > > >> <p> > > >> The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog > > >> - should be the details of the person uploading <em>this</em> > > >> - version. They are <em>not</em> necessarily those of the > > >> - usual package maintainer.<footnote> > > >> - If the developer uploading the package is not one of the > > >> usual > > >> - maintainers of the package (as listed in > > >> + should be the details of the person who prepared this release > > >> of > > >> + the package. They are <em>not</em> necessarily those of the > > >> + uploader or usual package maintainer.<footnote> > > >> + In the case of a sponsored upload, the uploader signs the > > >> + files, but the changelog maintainer name and address are > > >> those > > >> + of the person who prepared this release. If the preparer of > > >> + the release is not one of the usual maintainers of the > > >> package > > >> + (as listed in > > >> the <qref id="f-Maintainer"><tt>Maintainer</tt></qref> > > >> or <qref id="f-Uploaders"><tt>Uploaders</tt></qref> control > > >> fields of the package), the first line of the changelog is > > > > > As I said earlier, I do not think that this matches current practices. > > > > > As I see current practices: > > > 1) the name in the changelog in the one of whoever ran dch last, > > > i.e. the name of the developer who changed the date in the changelog > > > last. > > > > > 2) Someone sponsoring a package does not change it in any way. > > > > > Maybe this kind of information are better placed in the developer > > > reference than in policy. > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > Your objection here is I think the only thing left to deal with to resolve > > this bug, since the patch has otherwise been seconded. As Raphaël pointed > > out, I didn't intend a substantive difference between "preparing the > > release" and "making the last change"; whoever does the equivalent of dch > > -r is what's meant. Do you think this is unclear enough that I shouldn't > > merge the patch? I'm inclined to merge the patch since I think we're > > falling into the trap of scrutinizing the wording too closely. > > > > I agree that the details that you describe should probably be in the > > developer reference rather than in Policy, which is why I'm trying to keep > > this as succinct and short as possible while still addressing the original > > bug, which correctly points out that the current Policy wording implies > > that sponsors of packages should replace the changelog footer with their > > own identity (definitely not existing or recommended practice). > > It is clear we agree on the fundamental issues, so I will trust your judgement > on the wording. I am always concerned that removing one ambiguity will > introduce > another.
Russ, should I apply your patch even after Dimitri comment about sponsored NMU ? Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
