[D-m-team] Cleaning Uploaders -- a mistake?

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 11:25:48PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> What about the following: Add another field to the changeset, called
> packages. 

The problem on the -perl list seems to be wanting to use the Uploaders:
field to list something other than the people who maintain the package. I
couldn't quite work out what, exactly though.

Damyan:
] Additionally I've applied the usual amount of nitpicking so there were
] other changes as well, not only the directory removal issue.
] As part of this, I've removed non-DDs, non-DMs from Uploaders as usual.

There's no need to remove non-DDs/non-DMs from Uploaders; the key
issue is only having people who're responsible for maintaining the
package there.  If you're just randomly adding bits here and there,
you probably shouldn't be in the Uploaders: field, whoever you are;
if you're taking care of it and doing regular updates and dealing with
bug reports (whether uploading directly, via a sponsor, or via commit
access with alioth, eg), you should be there.

From IRC:
16:06 < dam> xoswald: why do you need to be in Uploaders?
16:07 < xoswald> Im intereted in maintaining all libauthen-foo-perl
      package that's why I started to package all libauthen-foo-perl, as you
      can see in http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=x.oswald@free.fr
16:07 < xoswald> dam: you could have let me as uploader

Being interested in maintaining isn't enough -- you need to have gone
past that and actually /be/ maintaining it.

16:11 < dam> indeed. pkg-perl decided to use Uploaders for people who
      have permission to upload, not co-maintain

AFAICS these should be the same thing -- if you're co-maintainer
you should be uploading. If you shouldn't be uploading, you're not a
co-maintainer, you're a helpful contributor or similar.

16:21 < dam> that joe-random-user once prepared new upstream of libfoo-perl 
             and got in Uploaders
16:22 < dam> later, joe-random-user is accepted as a DM, based on his work on 
             package super-cow
16:22 < dam> later, Tincho, who is a DM wants to be able to upload 
             libfoo-perl, for which he cares very much
16:23 < dam> and, I upload libfoo-perl with XS-DM-Upload-Allowed: yes
16:23 < dam> see? joe-random-user now has permission to upload libfoo-perl

So the problems with the above scenario seem to be:

	- "once prepared a new upstream" isn't "maintaining" a package, so
	  shouldn't warrant an entry in Uploaders:

	- adding "XS-DM-Upload-Allowed: yes" should mean reviewing the
	  existing Maintainer:/Uploaders: fields to ensure their current,
	  and removing people who aren't maintaining the package

which would stop that from resulting in JRU getting upload permission for
libfoo-perl. (Or, if he had been maintaining the package previously, and
the DD adding the XS-DM-UA field had left him in after reviewing, would mean
that he /should/ be getting upload permissions)

> Uploaded packages by DMs should then be checked for DM-Upload-Allowed
> set by a sponsored upload, the correct key and the correct package. So
> DMs are restricted to packages and things like "DMs could add other DMs
> to DM-Upload-Allowed packages" should not happen.

DMs *can* add other DMs to DM-Upload-Allowed packages. If the people
maintaining perl packages -- which includes any DM maintainers -- have
a different policy for their packages, that's fine, of course.

In this case the only question seems to be "is Xavier a maintainer of
libauthen-krb5-simple-perl", and since 0.32-1 (which was the initial
upload) and 0.32-2 seem to have been prepared by Xavier and sponsored
by abi, it seems like he is. OTOH, those changes were in February last
year, so that could mean that he hasn't been paying attention to the package
since that time -- I can't tell from here.

16:24 < xoswald> dam: yes, but Im not lucky since my AM don't like DM
                 and don't want to apply any of his NM for DM

Your AM doesn't need to support your application; just a DD who's worked
closely with you and thinks you're doing a good job.

Cheers,
aj

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/d-m-team/attachments/20080117/30833269/attachment.pgp