Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that
>> packages that are team maintained in name only should be orphaned
>> properly, with their maintainer field set to the QA team. This is
>> already current best practice, but it's worth emphasising, because one
>> might fail to orphan a package on the grounds that "someone else on the
>> team might fix it", which is not true of a lot of teams.
> You are omitting the case of a team which get reduced to a single
> member, in which case the package need not be orphaned. Yet it is
> important the fact is mentionned in the package.
I don't think I understand the objection. Sean's proposed wording seems
fine for that case -- it just says that the package should be orphaned if
the team is not maintaining it, which shouldn't depend on the size of the
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>