Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > [dropping a pile of cc'ed addresses] > > Quoting Simon Josefsson (2026-02-20 14:50:28) >> Dominik George <[email protected]> writes: >> > > this is the whole point of making the Uploader field optional. >> > > When absent, it means that every team member is equally in chage >> > > for the packag >> > What does this entail? Do I constantly have to monitor upstream? Do >> > I, personally, get all the maintainer duties? And everyone else in >> > the team as well? >> >> No. The package is a shared responsibility, which is my perception >> of the point of doing team-maintained package in the first place. If >> you don't want shared responsibility, then why team-maintain >> something? > > How can I assess, as a concerned Debian developer, whether everybody or > somebody or nobody in a team are responsible for the package? > > If the answer is "ask the team" then why is the Uploaders field ever > relevant? I mean, the MIA team and anyone else concerned about a > package can always "just ask" - why should we need to declare ahead of > time what individuals take responsibility for, when we play loose with > teams?
+1 >> It is fine for people to have the single-maintainer model and still >> be able to do what they want. Nobody has suggested to remove the >> Uploaders field. Only to make it optional, for those who prefer >> another way. > > What do you mean by "do what they want"? Isn't it those arguing for > making the Uploaders field optional for team-maintained packages that > wants to "do what they want"? In what ways can maintainers of > single-maintainer packages "do what they want"? I was only referring to "use an Uploaders" field here. Nobody has suggested preventing anyone from using it, as far as I have seen. So making it optional allows either workflow. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
