Web lists-archives.com

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:25:32 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:

Thanks for your long and elaborate email.
Unfortunately I find myself disagreeing with your two main points:

> I wonder whether we are framing this in the right way anyway. There
> are two orthogonal questions in my mind:
>  - is a specific person MIA?
>  - is a package still maintained?

Ack, separating these questions makes sense to me.
> On the other hand you could have a package that has
> Maintainer: some team and Uploaders: some person, where "some
> person" is actually MIA, but the rest of the team is still actively
> maintaining the package.

Right, I think that's the situation that the proponents of this
change have in mind.
> The main problem I see with Uploaders: is that it's often not really
> up to date. So I do think that it might be a good idea to track the
> people who are responsible for a package outside of the package
> itself in some kind of central database that is not tied to package
> uploads. […] So I don't think the Uploaders:
> field in a package is useless, I just think the current way of
> storing that information is not the best way to do so. But until
> such a central database is ready for usage, I don't think it would
> be wise to drop Uploaders: at the moment, because otherwise that
> information can't be tracked at all.

Here I disagree: This database would just shift the outdated
information to another place; and more generally: I fail to see which
problem it solves.

I guess this is the general difference in perception we have in this
discussion: Some people start from the idea of "responsibility of a
human for a team package" while others are happy and have good
experiences in teams where all (or enough) members take
responsibility for the team packages and feel that a "dedicated human
responsible" doesn't make sense in their workflow.

What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders"
proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not,
actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons
privately when emails to the BTS or the maintainer/team list are
ignored? And what happens if they ignore these communications as
> To help with the question of whether a package is still being
> actively maintained, let me frame it in this way: I think it is
> not completely unreasonable to say that _most_ packages will be
> updated at least once every 12 months in sid or experimental. (The
> precise number is subject to bikeshedding.) Of course that's not
> true for every package, there are some packages which don't require
> updates that often. So what one could do is the following: a
> package is considered to be actively maintained if a maintainer (or
> team) upload has happened in the last 12 months. (NMUs don't count.)
> If that is not the case, after 12 months an email is automatically
> sent to the maintainer/uploaders to ask whether they are still
> actively maintaining the package. 

I'm sorry but this feels like loads of paperwork for active teams
with tons of package which might not need an upload each $months.

I mean, in the worst case we could script the replies to the pings but
I'd rather not go there :)


 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature