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. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.