Fabian Grünbichler <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, at 7:21 PM, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 06:22:13PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>>Do you (or anyone else) update the Uploaders field? In what way? >> >> I feel like I probably should in some way, but at the moment I basically >> don't unless I particularly feel inclined to take over primary >> maintenance of that particular package. > > The effective practice in the Rust team also matches this. > > Uploaders usually contains whoever first packaged a particular crate, > and potentially people who expressed a particular interest in it after, > if they bothered (enough) to add themselves. > > To pick a random example - rust-cargo's last non-team upload by someobdy > in Uploaders was in 2021, the 27(!) uploads after were "Team uploads" > (with all but one marked as such). I guess I should add myself to > Uploaders with the next one ;) for rust-libc it's very similar (26 uploads > since the last non-team-upload in 2021). Many crate packages might only > have a single upload by the Uploader (the first one to NEW).
So if this is the de-facto situation for Python, Go and Rust team, I wonder if we shouldn't make the 'Uploaders:' field optional to allow team Maintainer: fields without any particular Uploaders: fields. It seems to me that the Uploaders: fields doesn't really reflect any relevant information, or at least none that is kept up to date. Is there any reason we couldn't make this change to policy? /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
