On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:08 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> As far as implementation details go, would it be a good idea to also
> add dch --team, which would produce the right string for the purposes
> of quieting lintian?
I think that would be useful. I think if we don't do this, many will
simply "w
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> It was proposed in 2009 to formalise "Team uploads" in analogy to the "QA
> uploads", as a special case of NMU, where most conventions are relaxed.
As the initiator of the previous thread, I'd like to thank you for pushing this.
As far as
Charles Plessy writes:
> After the patch to the Dev. Ref. is accepted, I will submit a simple
> patch to Lintian. I do not think that it is necessary for Lintian to
> cross-check if the DD doing the team upload is really a team member.
I agree.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <
Dear all,
I have updated http://wiki.debian.org/TeamUpload and submitted #573110
to the Developers Reference.
I tend to manage my priorities by caring first of the packages listed
in my QA page, and then the other packages of my team. But if I add
myself as an uploader to all the packages I touch
Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> Not quite. 5.12 recommends a way to deal with team maintenance but is
> not enough here. Reading 5.12 (list as maintainer, the one who feels
> responsible as uploader) still allows having no uploader when noone
> feels responsible.
> I'd like to see a clear and unmistakl
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:28:11AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
>
> > There is just one thing that bothers me: this new feature would invite
> > teams to actually put noone in the uploaders list. The team would be
> > maintainer and no real person would be listed in the pa
Charles Plessy writes:
> Are there other persons interested? Shall I go ahead and submit a patch
> to Lintian and the Developers Reference (plus perhaps the Policy to
> include a footnote containing the special changelog lines for NMU, QA,
> security and team uploads)?
Just for the record, in ge
Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> There is just one thing that bothers me: this new feature would invite
> teams to actually put noone in the uploaders list. The team would be
> maintainer and no real person would be listed in the package.
Lintian attempts to detect this but may not be able to depending
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:40:47PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Are there other persons interested? Shall I go ahead and submit a
> patch to Lintian and the Developers Reference (plus perhaps the Policy
> to include a footnote containing the special changelog lines for NMU,
> QA, security and tea
Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:40:47PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Are there other persons interested? Shall I go ahead and submit a patch to
>> Lintian and the Developers Reference (plus perhaps the Policy to include a
>> footnote containing the special cha
Hi Charles,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:40:47PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Are there other persons interested? Shall I go ahead and submit a patch to
> Lintian and the Developers Reference (plus perhaps the Policy to include a
> footnote containing the special changelog lines for NMU, QA, secur
Le Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 02:42:02PM +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>
> In my team (pkg-java) we seem to treat these upload as completely normal
> Maintainer Uploads; meaning that the "Team Uploader" is not restricted
> to "minimal changes" but may[1] fix whatever needs to be done (e.g. fix
> lintia
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It was proposed in 2009 to formalise "Team uploads" in analogy to the "QA
> uploads", as a special case of NMU, where most conventions are relaxed.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/e13a36b30904052052g73850787vcc8b2035640d7...@mail.gmail.com
>
> While there was in
On Tue Apr 07 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> In the pkg-perl group, at least, it is not at all uncommon that a team
> member (usually not a DD) works on a package and tags it as ready for
> upload. And then a DD just comes along, checks it, builds and uploads
> - without having worked with it. It is n
Matthew Johnson dijo [Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:24:44AM +0100]:
> > It is a useful concept, but I would like to consider them as "special
> > case NMUs" rather than "special case MUs".
>
> Quite apart from the issue of deciding whether or not something is 'team
> maintained' in all cases, if you are
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Charles Plessy writes:
>>> so in the end, can we use the “ * QA upload.” special first line for
>>> non-uploader uploads without breaking the QA infrastructure?
>> No, that is reserved for orphaned packages and triggers other
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
> > so in the end, can we use the “ * QA upload.” special first line for
> > non-uploader uploads without breaking the QA infrastructure?
>
> No, that is reserved for orphaned packages and triggers other checks to
> ensure the main
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:51:54AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> There still should be some humans in Maintainer/Uploaders who are
>> taking primary responsibility for the package, but I think other team
>> members should be able to do QA-style fixes and transition upl
On Tue Apr 07 10:38, Charles Plessy wrote:
> so in the end, can we use the “ * QA upload.” special first line for
> non-uploader uploads without breaking the QA infrastructure?
That's wrong if the maintainer is not debian...@lists.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital si
Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:51:54AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> There still should be some humans
> in Maintainer/Uploaders who are taking primary responsibility for the
> package, but I think other team members should be able to do QA-style
> fixes and transition uploads without using NMU ve
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:51:54AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>
> > The point of team upload is precisely so that you can update the package
> > and not take responsibility for a package that you don't want to
> > maintain in the long run.
> >
> > I was in many Uploaders
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> The point of team upload is precisely so that you can update the package
> and not take responsibility for a package that you don't want to
> maintain in the long run.
>
> I was in many Uploaders field because lintian complain if you are not in
> Uploaders/Maintainer, ye
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:52:54 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> In Debian we have several teams working on maintaining large numbers
> of packages (pkg-games, pkg-perl, pkg-gnome for example).
True :)
> I
> proposed[1] to silence the lintian NMU warnings in the case of "team
> uploads"; where the person
Romain Beauxis (06/04/2009):
> Couldn't this also be a line in the changelog ?
Like the trailer line, yes.
> This is not a standard but this is done in many cases:
>
> [ Romain Beauxis ]
> * Upload to $TARGET
Dunno about others, but I just see that as: this person chose to target
this or tha
Le Monday 06 April 2009 16:08:36 Cyril Brulebois, vous avez écrit :
> Indeed, I like to know who took the “this package can be uploaded”
> decision, which is a bit more important than just committing a fix in
> $VCS and adding ones name to the changelog. A bit of final review has to
> be done, to e
Raphael Hertzog (06/04/2009):
> Except when you have multiple people listed you don't know who
> uploaded without resorting to who-uploads (or gpg check).
Not to mention cases where 5 people are listed there, and the package
got sponsored by even someone else (any idea how many NMs there were in
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> For blaming, there should be the specific name of the responsible in the
> changelog. Also, it seems meaningful to me that the changelog is named after
> the team, it seems to be equivalent to the real world "on behalf of the XXX
> team".
Except when
Le Monday 06 April 2009 12:27:22 Raphael Hertzog, vous avez écrit :
> > You can put the team name and mailing list in the changelog. That will
> > avoid the lintian warning and you can look for team uploads by looking at
> > uploads with the team name in the Changed-By field. A recent example:
>
>
Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:52:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> On 06/04/09 at 19:48 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:13:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > > I think that it is a good concept, but the linian w
On 06/04/09 at 19:48 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:13:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > I think that it is a good concept, but the linian warning has probably a
> > > good
> > > reason to exist. For instance, if a
Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 12:13:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I think that it is a good concept, but the linian warning has probably a
> > good
> > reason to exist. For instance, if a bug is closed as part of a "Team
> > upload",
> > won't th
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > So I object to using NMU version for team uploads but I would like to
> > have a mechanism for a team upload that doesn't lead to people adding
> > themselves in Uploaders when they don't have a (real/long-term) commitm
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> So I object to using NMU version for team uploads but I would like to
> have a mechanism for a team upload that doesn't lead to people adding
> themselves in Uploaders when they don't have a (real/long-term) commitment
> to the package.
You can put the team name and mailin
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that it is a good concept, but the linian warning has probably a good
> reason to exist. For instance, if a bug is closed as part of a "Team upload",
> won't the BTS expect a NMU acknowledgement anyway?
IIRC that concept died when we introduced
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > would really be a waste of time that would anihilate the efficiency
> > of working in a team.
>
> The only "burden" I propose imposing is the NMU versioning, which does
> not feel to me like it is additional work. Instead of writing "-3",
> write
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Just like NMUs: just because a package had a small number of NMUs does
> not mean it needs special QA attention. But a pattern of only NMUs is
> a tag for QA attention. As Paul means them (I'm in the team, but for
The point of team upload is precise
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Monday 06 April 2009 08:18:33 Lionel Elie Mamane, vous avez écrit :
>> My reasoning is that a package that has had only "team uploads" for
>> three years is a package where effectively no human is taking charge
>> for maintaining
Le Monday 06 April 2009 08:18:33 Lionel Elie Mamane, vous avez écrit :
> My reasoning is that a package that has had only "team uploads" for
> three years is a package where effectively no human is taking charge
> for maintaining it, just as a package that has had only NMU uploads in
> three years;
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 05:05:40PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> >
> > In Debian we have several teams working on maintaining large numbers
> > of packages (pkg-games, pkg-perl, pkg-gnome for example). I
> > proposed[1] to silence th
Le Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>
> In Debian we have several teams working on maintaining large numbers
> of packages (pkg-games, pkg-perl, pkg-gnome for example). I
> proposed[1] to silence the lintian NMU warnings in the case of "team
> uploads"; where the person d
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:53AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:18:33AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> I proposed[1] to silence the lintian NMU warnings in the case of
>>> "team uploads"; where the pers
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:18:33AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > In Debian we have several teams working on maintaining large numbers
> > of packages (pkg-games, pkg-perl, pkg-gnome for example). I
> > proposed[1] to silence the
On Mon Apr 06 08:18, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > In Debian we have several teams working on maintaining large numbers
> > of packages (pkg-games, pkg-perl, pkg-gnome for example). I
> > proposed[1] to silence the lintian NMU warnings
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:54AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> In Debian we have several teams working on maintaining large numbers
> of packages (pkg-games, pkg-perl, pkg-gnome for example). I
> proposed[1] to silence the lintian NMU warnings in the case of "team
> uploads"; where the person doing
44 matches
Mail list logo
