Hi,
just to support a random of the supportive mails: Many Blends teams I
know are using Uploaders field in a similar way as described in this
thread. Making it optional would really help.
I know several cases where original Uploaders vanished while the team is
keeping up the maintenance. Its just a mental thing to decide: Is it
OK to reflect reality or will this hurt the person who originally spent
some time into it if the name is removed after X years of no commit.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Am Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 02:01:37AM +0100 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2026 22:58:22 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > Fabian Grünbichler <[email protected]> writes:
> > So if this is the de-facto situation for Python, Go and Rust team,
>
> Also the Debian Perl Group.
>
> > I
> > wonder if we shouldn't make the 'Uploaders:' field optional to allow
> > team Maintainer: fields without any particular Uploaders: fields.
>
> Hahaha!
>
> I guess I should explain why I'm bursting out in laughter: Yes of course we
> should, and I've argued this several times in the past, and it was always
> was shot down by vocal people who are not involved in any of this team
> maintenance stuff.
>
> > 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?
>
> I completely agree, and if you'r going to try and change this, I will
> (again) support this position.
>
>
> Cheers,
> gregor
>
> --
> .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
> : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
> `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
> `-
--
https://fam-tille.de
