On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:01:24AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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.

Your objection does not make sense.

The change Sean is proposing is intended to make providing the 
information about team members in Uploaders: optional.

If are not objecting to removing the information about who is in a team,
you cannot suggest that anything should be done based on the no longer 
existing information about the number of team members.

> Cheers,



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Reply via email to