On 03/03/2025 03:52, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Blair Noctis (2025-03-02 18:06:49) [...]Dan Armstrong (don) wontfix'd it after stating that, quote:If the maintainer is not given as a mailing list, then the uploaders should all subscribe to the PTS for a given package.[...]I added that a. team maintenance means hundreds or thousands emails sent to the team Maintainer address, many of which are probably for packages a particular maintainer doesn't care about, and b. it's a hassle and often forgotten to subscribe to all those tens or hundreds of packages one maintains. Well, that can be automated, so this is not a strong argument, but option 2 would still make it better.What happened to "If the maintainer is not given as a mailing list" in your added concerns?
Not sure what you meant. If "the maintainer is not given as a mailing list", my understanding is that it then is given as an individual, which doesn't have a problem here. I'm not aware of a situation where the maintainer is neither a mailing list, including list-like addresses like @p.d.o or @tracker.d.o, nor an individual.
The cases you talk about with Uploader involved in hundreds of packages, are you then expanding to also discuss larger teams with a mailinglist as Uploader?
I was indeed talking about such cases, where the Maintainer is set to the mailing list of a larger team, and individual human maintainers are Uploaders.
If you instead talk about packages where Maintainer is effectively /dev/null then you got bigger problems than Uploader needing busywork!
I talked about situations where Maintainer is effectively a catch-all, and someone thinks it's too catch-all to catch for themself. It's different from the /dev/null situation you said, which to my understanding means this someone does not check it at all. FWIW, as a someone myself, I don't subscribe to certain lists listed as Maintainer, but still check them from time to time. -- Sdrager, Blair Noctis
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
