Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
/me just realized he made a stupid mistake by grep'ing Packages instead of Sources. Approximate data based on grep'ing Sources: - 452 teams maintaining packages in unstable - 3 is the median number of packages maintained by a team - 155 teams maintaining a single package On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-07 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:29:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > since teams are less likely to only have a single leaf package. Approximate data based on grep'ing Packages[1]: - 466 teams maintaining packages in unstable - 8 is the median number of packages maintained by a team - 73 teams

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-06 Thread Andreas Tille
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:22:03PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > So, if you want to count votes: I am working in teams (mainly Debian > > Astro), and I would favour keeping it -- > > Perfectly fine, thanks for adding your point of view. > > (And just to be sure: The proposal is not to

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Russ Allbery
Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:57:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> but regardless of that discussion, machine-readable team information is >> not something we have now. > Policy says that Uploaders should list all co-maintainers. Your understanding of

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Russ Allbery
Tobias Frost writes: > Am Donnerstag, den 03.08.2017, 11:58 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: >> Or track MIA teams, which in a lot of ways is a much easier problem, >> and seems like a worthwhile problem to solve anyway. > No, because with a $TEAM you have to expand it to

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread gregor herrmann
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:20:37 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > > So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in teams in this > > thread who are in favour of dropping the required Uploaders field. > So, if you want to count votes: I am working in teams (mainly Debian > Astro), and I would

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Ole Streicher
gregor herrmann writes: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:39:40 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> Regarding the first point, most large teams do have have the concept of >> package ownership inside the team. > > Maybe, maybe not. > So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread gregor herrmann
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:39:40 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Regarding the first point, most large teams do have have the concept of > package ownership inside the team. Maybe, maybe not. So far I've seen mostly voices from people working in teams in this thread who are in favour of dropping the

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
One thing that is worth discussing here: For how many teams would it bring real benefits if they no longer have to maintain team membership information in every source packages? My guesstimate is that these might perhaps be 5 teams. Why is my guestimate so low? It only brings real benefits

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Holger Levsen
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 09:05:46PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I think using the uploaders: field to guess who's a team member is just a > > work-around / an estimate, as we have nothing better. > It is the official place to list co-maintainers. you keep repeating this but its still broken by

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:28:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically > > > generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the > > > source package? > > >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Holger Levsen
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically > > generated, just generate it when you need it -- why store it in the > > source package? > > What cannot be automatically generated is the other side of the >

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:15:16PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >... > Besides, while it doesn't imply you shouldn't make an upload that only > changes the maintainer (unlike 5.9.5. Adopting a package), I think it's > the usual practice to not make such upload. For people who are orphaning

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:01:41AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:55:01AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > > > An O: bug means

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:57:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > but regardless of > that discussion, machine-readable team information is not something we > have now. Policy says that Uploaders should list all co-maintainers. Who is considered a co-maintainer is determined by team policy or

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:01:41AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > Nowadays orphaning is done by reuploading the package with the > > > maintainer set to the QA group rather than using a O: wnpp bug. > > Huh? > > See: >

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Bill Allombert
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:55:01AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphaned, and > > > > gives

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:10:41PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > In a more general note, I am a bit puzzled that it is so controversial > > that machine-readable team membership information is important and > > should continue to be available. > >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:20:31PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 04 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Autogenerating Uploaders like GNOME does [1] would be an alternative > > approach. > > > > [1] > > https://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-pkg-tools/0.19.9/1/rules/uploaders.mk/

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-05 Thread Tobias Frost
Am Freitag, den 04.08.2017, 22:46 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is > > > orphaned, and > > > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately. > > > > So just

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Fri, Aug 04 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Autogenerating Uploaders like GNOME does [1] would be an alternative > approach. > > [1] > https://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-pkg-tools/0.19.9/1/rules/uploaders.mk/ I don't understand this suggestion. If it can be automatically generated, just

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Russ Allbery
Adrian Bunk writes: > In a more general note, I am a bit puzzled that it is so controversial > that machine-readable team membership information is important and > should continue to be available. One of the major points of disagreement in this thread is that you think this

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > And in the other direction what you describe would leave no way for a > person to make it visible that he has left the team. It is rarely my experience that people leave teams in clean, definitive breaks. If they did, packages wouldn't have to be orphaned

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:46:19PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphaned, and > > > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately. > > > > So just file

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Bill Allombert
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > An O: bug means that it is confirmed that the package is orphaned, and > > gives permission to everyone to adopt the package immediately. > > So just file an an Intent-To-Orphan bug. [This why I suggested to file > the bug against

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:59:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > Uploaders is not the only option for doing that, but any change should > > include provising more reliable information - not less reliable > > information. > > In practice, Uploaders

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > And it would not work when the latest maintainer upload was by a team > member who retired or was declared MIA earlier. That can be found out by recursing until you find a non-MIA individual who has uploaded since the previous stable release, or something

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:25:57AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > > maintainer would be very bad. > > > > Think of it as a 3 step process: > > [...] > > > 3. for every package

Re: Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > maintainer would be very bad. > > Think of it as a 3 step process: [...] > 3. for every package where the maintainer is in Maintainer or Uploaders >the MIA team either orphans

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:48:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > One approach as Holger points out: look for > packages where all the recent uploads have been by the MIA member, which > doesn't require the Uploaders field at all. As I already tried to explain, this is an easy part that could

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Adrian Bunk writes: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Adrian Bunk writes: >>> Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired >>> maintainer would be very bad. >> I agree, but that's not directly relevant

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > > maintainer would be very bad. > > I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:16:30PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > > > proponents: What does

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Adrian Bunk writes: > Regressing on being able to orphan all packages of a known-MIA/retired > maintainer would be very bad. I agree, but that's not directly relevant here, since we're talking about team-maintained packages. The whole *point* of team maintenance is that

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:11:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > > lot "team maintained" packages where the

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread gregor herrmann
On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:16:03 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > > actually give others? Are they

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: >... > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons > privately when

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Clint Adams
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:25:46PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > What I don't understand in the point of view of the "keep Uploaders" > proponents: What does this information, whether correct or not, > actually give others? Are they going to email or phone these persons > privately when emails

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Holger Levsen
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:04:17PM -0400, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > […] > Thanks for putting my thoughts (again!) into better words than I ever > could! +1 > > (I am entirely in favor of giving the MIA team more actual power.) > (Me too.

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:36:04PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy. > > > > This would not be "a purely informative change". > > > > Your suggested wording has

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread gregor herrmann
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 21:25:32 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: Thanks for your long and elaborate email. Unfortunately I find myself disagreeing with your two main points: > I wonder whether we are framing this in the right way anyway. There > are two orthogonal questions in my mind: > - is a

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread gregor herrmann
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:11:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Tobias Frost writes: > > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Christian Seiler
On 08/03/2017 08:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > >> Do the MIA team also track MIA teams? > >> My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when >> none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually. > >> For such

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Tobias Frost writes: > Some time ago I did some spring cleaning going over DDs that have > retired but still in the Maintainer/Uploader fields: There were quite a > lot "team maintained" packages where the team did not recognize that the > (sole) Uploader wasn't there anymore

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Jonas Smedegaard writes: > Do the MIA team also track MIA teams? > My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when > none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually. > For such detection of abandonment we need not track _all_ active >

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Russ Allbery (2017-08-03 11:41:12) > Bill Allombert writes: > > > The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the > > maintainers. That is what I am objecting to. > > Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of > listing

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Tobias Frost
Am Donnerstag, den 03.08.2017, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Sean Whitton: > Hello Tobias, > > Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective, > which is very relevant to resolving this. > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > > Some remarks / questions I

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Tobias, Thank you for writing about this bug from the MIA team's perspective, which is very relevant to resolving this. On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:44:36AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > Some remarks / questions I do not see adressed: > - If you have not a name on some task human nature tends

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Sean Whitton
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy. > > This would not be "a purely informative change". > > Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions. You're right. After

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Bill Allombert writes: > The patch also remove the requirement to list individual email of the > maintainers. That is what I am objecting to. Oh, okay, I see that, but I'm not sure why. What is the purpose of listing those email addresses that you want to preserve? > When

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:30:11PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > 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 writes: > > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
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 writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > > >> I've also included a purely informative

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Adrian Bunk
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

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert 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

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Tobias Frost
Am 2. August 2017 23:48:15 MESZ schrieb Sean Whitton : >Hello, > >Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of >the policy manual. > >I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that >packages that are team maintained in name

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-02 Thread Russ Allbery
Bill Allombert 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

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-02 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of > the policy manual. > > I've also included a purely informative change which emphasises that > packages that are team maintained in name only should be

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-02 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, Here is an updated diff for this bug, against the docbook version of the policy manual. 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