On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > What I question is making the new address the new default for > "Maintainer:". I'd rather only make it a possiblity (to replace > mailing lists, for package groups, and for maintainers prefering it).
Well, the proposal doesn't force everybody to switch. Although I hope this will be adopted by all the maintainers. > So I think the proposal should rather be that nothing within Debian > should use the "Maintainer:" field directly, but rather submit the > data to the new system (for example with a pts-like mail with headers). > > As everything sending to "Maintainer:" should be changed anyway, that > would have all the benefits, without disrupting maintainers or > suggesting big changes unrelated to the actual proposal. Hum, we already have modified several Debian services (DAK, BTS) to send copies to the PTS. And I have mentionned that this copy sent to the PTS will let us use this new infrastructure also for packages where the Maintainer has not (yet) been updated. But I would like this to be a temporary situation, I don't want to keep the duality of mail flow towards maintainers. And somehow I doubt that the maintainers of said services will want to disable sending mails to the Maintainer and just send mails to this system. If you consider that those services are to be used also by derivatives that do not use DPMH, it makes sense for those services to keep using the Maintainer field. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128192745.go4...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
