On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > And in the other direction what you describe would leave no way for a > person to make it visible that he has left the team.
It is rarely my experience that people leave teams in clean, definitive breaks. If they did, packages wouldn't have to be orphaned by the QA group. Maintainers would take care of that themselves. > There is no Intent-To-Orphan bug. Not currently, but one can be created. > In a more general note, I am a bit puzzled that it is so controversial > that machine-readable team membership information is important and > should continue to be available. Because maintaining such a field increases the burden on teams for little to no benefit. I know I haven't bothered to be sure that the Uploaders field in any of my packages only contains people who are currently actively involved in maintaining that particular packages. On Fri, 04 Aug 2017, Bill Allombert wrote: > Nowadays orphaning is done by reuploading the package with the > maintainer set to the QA group rather than using a O: wnpp bug. Good point. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com The smallest quantity of bread that can be sliced and toasted has yet to be experimentally determined. In the quantum limit we must necessarily encounter fundamental toast particles which the author will unflinchingly designate here as "croutons". -- Cser, Jim. Nanotechnology and the Physical Limits of Toastability. AIR 1:3, June, 1995.
