On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org 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
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 wing
.
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)?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http
, security and team
uploads)?
Fine for me. I understand there is some use of this proposal in teams
and I don't see big reasons against it (those being said in the last
thread about this).
There is just one thing that bothers me: this new feature would invite
teams to actually put noone in the uploaders
lines for NMU, QA, security and
team
uploads)?
Fine for me. I understand there is some use of this proposal in teams
and I don't see big reasons against it (those being said in the last
thread about this).
There is just one thing that bothers me: this new feature would invite
teams
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 team
Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org 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
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org 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
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:28:11AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org 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
Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org 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
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
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org 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)
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 interest
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 interest, the discussion eventually ended
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 not
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
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org 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
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org 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
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org 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
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 a member
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
in the case of team
uploads; where the person doing the upload is a member of the team
in Maintainers but is not present in Uploaders. Does anyone think
this concept of team uploads has merit?
It is a useful concept, but I would like to consider them as special
case NMUs rather than special case
the lintian NMU warnings in the case of team
uploads; where the person doing the upload is a member of the team
in Maintainers but is not present in Uploaders. Does anyone think
this concept of team uploads has merit?
It is a useful concept, but I would like to consider them as special
case NMUs
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 person doing
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 doing
the lintian NMU warnings in the case of team
uploads; where the person doing the upload is a member of the team in
Maintainers but is not present in Uploaders. Does anyone think this
concept of team uploads has merit?
Hi Paul,
I think that it is a good concept, but the linian warning has probably
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; I'd
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
transition and using an NMU version would have been
wrong because everything was properly done in the team VCS and there
was no NMU to integrate for the next person working on the package.
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
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, 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) commitment
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 bug is
thank you, that is clearer: I thought that it was meaning that it is still
needed to re-iterate the Closes: command.
So if we assume that in the case of “team uploads” the changes would be
commited in the teams repository, as opposed to NMUs were the diff is sent to
the BTS, it would definitely
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 mailing
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 -2.1; only
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:
I have
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 you
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org (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
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
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org (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
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 doing
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.
Then, the Maintainer/Uploader field would be again more accurate to know
if we have
for the next person working on the package.
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
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
Hi all,
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 the upload is a member of the team in
Maintainers
45 matches
Mail list logo
