Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields

2019-11-11 Thread Rebecca N. Palmer
Would it be possible to satisfy both groups by having an option on DDPO and similar listing tools for "only show team-as-Maintainer packages" vs "also show team-as-Uploader packages"? i.e. making it convenient for people to use either of these definitions of "in the team" as they prefer?

Re: Python 2 removal in sid/bullseye: Progress and next steps

2019-11-11 Thread Ondrej Novy
Hi, po 11. 11. 2019 v 12:07 odesílatel Yves-Alexis Perez napsal: > generic question about the interaction between the python transition and > current situation with NEW processing. > I think it's unrelated. State of NEW processing is stable for long time. But if you need to accept NEW

Re: Python 2 removal in sid/bullseye: Progress and next steps

2019-11-11 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 12:04 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > sorry if this has been discussed already somewhere else (I stopped reading > > - -devel@ a long time ago) but is there something done to improve NEW > > processing > > here? I have two

Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

2019-11-11 Thread Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package "developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance". -- Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D

Re: Python 2 removal in sid/bullseye: Progress and next steps

2019-11-11 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 10:33 +0100, Ondřej Nový wrote: > We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" > in several steps. In the > first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for > all leaf module

Re: Python 2 removal in sid/bullseye: Progress and next steps

2019-11-11 Thread Matthias Klose
On 11.11.19 11:43, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 10:33 +0100, Ondřej Nový wrote: We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in several steps. In the first phase we are going to raise severity of the

Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

2019-11-11 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 11/11/19 9:21 AM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote: > For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package > "developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance". Absolutely not. The developers-reference doesn't tell what the Python team policy is when the Uploaders field

Re: Severity bump script

2019-11-11 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Ondrej Novy wrote: > > Hi Sandro, > > -- Forwarded message - > > We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in > > several steps. In the > > first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for > > all

Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

2019-11-11 Thread Scott Kitterman
On November 10, 2019 10:09:57 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 11/10/19 1:20 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> is there any public trace of these "many voices"? > >Just like when we discussed moving away from SVN to Git, we can't know >the exact number unless we have a kind of poll/vote (but we don't

Re: Bug#943785: RFS: python-pyjsparser (ITP bug #943785)

2019-11-11 Thread Peter Wienemann
Hi Nick, thank you very much for taking the time to review the packaging and providing such detailed and helpful feedback. On 10.11.19 00:02, Nick Morrott wrote: > Thank you for your work in packaging python-pyjsparser. Out of > curiosity, what are you using to be build your package? My primary

Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

2019-11-11 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 11/11/19 9:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and > PAPT packages. If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate response > would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outside the > team. It's

Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

2019-11-11 Thread Sandro Tosi
that policy is well written down, at https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin - give it a look and see if it clarifies your doubt about team maintenance and why someone would prefer to have the ultimate responsibility for the quality of a package. you already created the