On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 21:51, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Ross Burton has just added his "Debian GNOME Packaging Policy" in the > doc manager: > http://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/1316/18/gnome-policy-20030502-1.html > > The doc will be soon available on the CVS/SVN server. It'll be great to > update/complete it, so all contributions are welcome ;-)
The question is do we use the GForce integrated CVS server, or the
experimental SVN server on svn.debian.org (which has access control via
alioth).
I'd prefer SVN as I want to play with it more, but will use CVS.
> 1- Maintainer/Uploaders fields :
> --------------------------------
>
> After having talked with some of you, I think the best format is:
>
> Maintainer: the maintainer
> Uploaders: the team, [complete list of the members]
>
> In this way :
>
> - The package keeps his maintainer (who know the best the package, the
> upstreams, etc ..)
> - We have a QA page for the team
> - All members can upload with their name.
Ah, so putting the team in the Uploaders field means there is a QA page
for the entire team, I see... :)
> 3- Bugs reports :
> -----------------
>
> Each maintainer will subscribe
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to the PTS for his
> packages, so the list will receive all bugs reports.
We need to expand on this document, adding examples. An example stanza
for mailing to pts@ would be great, so I could just copy+paste it for
every package.
> 4- CVS/SVN usage :
> ------------------
>
> Akira TAGOH has proposed to create a module for each source-package (the
> module name is the name of the source package) with the debian dir
> included. We could include the whole package for the native ones and
> doc for example.
I like the idea of the full upstream source in CVS, as it should make
things easier. However, I've never actually done this, has anyone else?
> 5- CVS/SVN usage :
> ------------------
>
> All changes in the CVS/SVN tree have to be reported in the changelog. We
> could set an temporary changelog number between two version.
>
> ie: a 1.2-1working2 version for the changes from 1.2-1 to 1.2-2.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply add entries to the changelog for 1.2-2
but not "finalize" it (in the emacs debian-changelog-mode sense) by not
adding the date? This way the changelog only contains the changes and
not a number of fake versions.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.burtonini.com./
PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
