Andrey Rakhmatullin writes ("Re: Bug#401452: Standardize syntax of the name in
the Maintainer control field"):
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:47:08AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Furthermore, we have the Uploaders field now. Clearly Maintainer and
> >Uploaders ought to be in the same syntax.
>
> This last line is somewhat surprising to me. Clearly Uploaders shouldn't
> exist if Maintainer allows multiple emails.
You do have a point. It's true that we invented Uploaders as a
workaroun for the problem with Maintainer not allowing commas. But
nowadays it seems that some people do make a distinction between
Maintainer and Uploaders.
I think trying to disentangle the semantics of Maintainer vs Uploaders
will to attract a great deal of attention from anyone who has opinions
about package maintenance practices - ie, loads and loads of people.
I worry we'll be drowning in "but *our* definition is ..." and "in our
team we distinguish ..." and so on.
I suggest that we decouple these problems.
I think we can fix the syntax first. Regardless of the semantics,
there is no good reason for the syntaxes to be different.
If after we have fixed the syntax, we can consider the semantics of
Mainitainer (possibly with multiple entries) vs Uploadeers,
separately. Then we can debate questions of workflow, policy,
politics, and so on, without getting hung up on the syntax.
IOW let's not try to drain the ocean all at once.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
