[Pkg-octave-devel] Plans for Wheezy++

[Sébastien Villemot]

Le jeudi 09 mai 2013 à 23:12 +0200, Thomas Weber a écrit :
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:26:03AM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > As far as I’m concerned, I prefer to wait for the resolution of #706761
> > before uploading to unstable. Please contribute to the discussion if you
> > have something to add there.
> 
> Hmm, so we now have two proposals on the table; we do not care which
> one of them is chosen, but one of them would be good :)

I decided to start uploading to unstable, without waiting for the
resolution of this override issue (which is anyways relatively minor).

> > I am not entirely happy with the current situation where both Thomas and
> > me are listed in the Uploaders field of almost all DOG packages. I don’t
> > think this reflect the true situation with respect to package
> > maintainership. I would prefer a situation where we are listed only in
> > the packages in which we are truly interested (and for those packages
> > which no one is interested in, then we distribute them randomly across
> > us, or we keep the current situation). I think it would also be good if
> > Rafael was listed as Uploader for his packages of interest (note that
> > this does not require the DM or DD status, even though I would be very
> > happy if Rafael was taking back one of these), but this is his call. And
> > of course, since the packages are team maintained, this would not
> > prevent one of us to fix other people's packages, especially in case of
> > RC bug.
> 
> My reading of [2] is that we must have one human in the Uploaders field.
> Of course, we have some packages about which we do not care too much
> personally, but which we keep for various reasons. I do not have a
> strong opinion here, so if you have some concrete ideas, just go ahead.

My idea is to create a wiki page where we would fill a matrix: in
columns the team members, in rows the packages. A checked box means that
the given person is interested in the given package. That would give us
an overview of who is interested in what, and we could reflect that in
the Uploaders field. For those package in which no one is interested, we
could keep the status quo.

This is however not of very high priority, so I won’t start this before
the post-release dust settles.

-- 
 .''`.    Sébastien Villemot
: :' :    Debian Developer
`. `'     http://www.dynare.org/sebastien
  `-      GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-octave-devel/attachments/20130514/84e632c0/attachment.pgp>