On Wed, 07 Oct 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I assume you all like other ideas, like no team in Maintainer, right?
While I understand the desire to have one identified maintainer for each
package, I don't agree with the rule.
Changing maintainer means changing the flow of information and it is a
On Oct 07 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I no longer think requiring contribution (the 3 months thing) is a good
> idea for DPMT (might be for a new team).
>
> I assume you all like other ideas, like no team in Maintainer, right?
>
> * team only in Uploaders field, the main contact (AKA Maintainer
On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 14:18 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I assume you all like other ideas, like no team in Maintainer, right?
I kind of liked the differentiation between the two options:
- I'm the primary maintainer and welcome other people working on my
packages (me in Maintainer, team in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-07 14:18, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I no longer think requiring contribution (the 3 months thing) is a
> good idea for DPMT (might be for a new team).
>
> I assume you all like other ideas, like no team in Maintainer,
> right?
if that's t
I no longer think requiring contribution (the 3 months thing) is a good
idea for DPMT (might be for a new team).
I assume you all like other ideas, like no team in Maintainer, right?
--
evil Piotr
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 09:12 -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> I always assumed that it was generally preferred to have Python
> packages be maintained in the Python team, even if the maintainer has
> little interest or time in contributing to other Python packages.
Same here. I have a few packages in
On Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:54:18 PM Stefano Rivera wrote:
>There's a fundamental question to ask here. Do we want to welcome Python
>packages into the team, or do we want to put up barriers and require a
>level of commitment before packages can be brought into the team?
Thanks Stefano for sta
On Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:54:18 PM Stefano Rivera wrote:
> This thread has had me thinking a bit.
>
> Hi Scott (2015.10.02_20:34:16_+0200)
>
> > Personally, I like the current approach where someone can either commit to
> > either strong team maintainership (DPMT in maintainer) or weak team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-02 10:30, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> it's 3 months to contribute to other packages (the ones where
> you're not listed in Maintainer).
hmm.
if i - hypthotically, because i really currently do not - cared a so
much about e.g. 30 DPMT package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-02 18:12, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Oct 02 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over
>> 300 members and only few people contribute to packages they
>> didn't inject to the repo (some pe
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 at 08:54 Stefano Rivera wrote:
> There's a fundamental question to ask here. Do we want to welcome Python
> packages into the team, or do we want to put up barriers and require a
> level of commitment before packages can be brought into the team?
Speaking for myself, I welcom
This thread has had me thinking a bit.
Hi Scott (2015.10.02_20:34:16_+0200)
> Personally, I like the current approach where someone can either commit to
> either strong team maintainership (DPMT in maintainer) or weak team
> involvement (DPMT as uploader). If you'll check, I have done both and
On 10/02/2015 01:18 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over 300
> members and only few people contribute to packages they didn't inject to
> the repo (some people do not care even about those).
Impressive that you write this after kicking me for
On Friday, October 02, 2015 01:18:00 AM Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over 300
> members and only few people contribute to packages they didn't inject to
> the repo (some people do not care even about those).
I think this is in part because we h
On Friday, October 02, 2015 09:12:44 AM Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Oct 02 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over 300
> > members and only few people contribute to packages they didn't inject to
> > the repo (some people do not care even about
On Oct 02 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over 300
> members and only few people contribute to packages they didn't inject to
> the repo (some people do not care even about those).
I always assumed that it was generally preferred to have Py
On Oct 02, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>well, then you will not gain much from maintaining this package within a
>team
It's not just the maintainer that wins by maintaining the package within the
team. The team also wins because it is now empowered to fix problems when the
need ari
On 2015-10-02 at 11:28:04 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Elena ``of Valhalla'', 2015-10-02]
> > +1: I also have packages that get new upstream releases very rarely (<1
> > per year): they are not dead, just very stable and with limited scope,
> > so there is no need to work often on them.
> well
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2015-10-02]
> * removal¹ of packages (not person) from the team if there's no
> contribution in 3 months in a row and no other team wants to take over
> given package
or a warning after month of inactivity and team removal from all
packages if number_of_commits_in_a_year / 12
[Elena ``of Valhalla'', 2015-10-02]
> +1: I also have packages that get new upstream releases very rarely (<1
> per year): they are not dead, just very stable and with limited scope,
> so there is no need to work often on them.
well, then you will not gain much from maintaining this package withi
[Vincent Bernat, 2015-10-02]
> OK, I understand. I always add myself as uploader before making a
> non-trivial change (to be able to receive bug reports outside the team
> mailing list). I understand it will be accounted for a contribution in
> this case, right?
right. The easiest contribution wou
On 2015-10-02 at 10:19:10 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 2 octobre 2015 09:41 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski :
> > * removal¹ of packages (not person) from the team if there's no
> > contribution in 3 months in a row and no other team wants to take over
> > given package
> 3 months is quite short.
❦ 2 octobre 2015 10:30 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski :
>> ❦ 2 octobre 2015 09:41 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski :
>>
>> > * removal¹ of packages (not person) from the team if there's no
>> > contribution in 3 months in a row and no other team wants to take over
>> > given package
>>
>> 3 months is qu
[Vincent Bernat, 2015-10-02]
> ❦ 2 octobre 2015 09:41 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski :
>
> > * removal¹ of packages (not person) from the team if there's no
> > contribution in 3 months in a row and no other team wants to take over
^ + member
>
❦ 2 octobre 2015 09:41 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski :
> * removal¹ of packages (not person) from the team if there's no
> contribution in 3 months in a row and no other team wants to take over
> given package
3 months is quite short. I have packages that don't get updates that
often. This should
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2015-10-02]
> * adding a package to the team (and getting all benefits, like
> sponsoring, bug fixes, etc.) requires pushing at least one commit to
> package without member's name in debian/control a month
> (doesn't matter if it's a typo fix, RC bug fix or a tag which can
>
I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over 300
members and only few people contribute to packages they didn't inject to
the repo (some people do not care even about those).
Here are some ideas on how to change that:
* team only in Uploaders field, the main contact (AKA Maintain
27 matches
Mail list logo
