On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
> team.

The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the
maintainers. That is what I am objecting to.

When a team is reduced to a single individual, it is no more a team, yet
the package is still maintained and need not be orphaned.

Bill. <ballo...@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply via email to