On 15 July 2012 14:48, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> OK, I agree with avoiding checkboxes if possible. To address (I think)
> all cases, I've changed the logic so that an email is associated with
> a package if, either:
> - it (co-)maintains the most recent version of the package is squeeze,
> wheezy or sid
> - or it (co-)maintains the package in experimental
> (there were some cases where a different maintainer was maintaining
> coreutils in experimental some time ago, in that case both maintainers
> should be associated with the package.)
Cool, this does sound right. Thanks. :)
>> Another interesting set of packages would be NMUs, where the uploader
>> is responsible for any issues caused by the NMU.
>
> Indeed, that would require selection of packages based on uploading key.
> It's already in the TODO list ;)
So far I was assuming this would use the changed_by field to work out
who prepared the nmudiff. The uploading key would tell you who
sponsored the NMU, and I suppose you could argue that the sponsor is
also responsible for any bugs...? This is my SQL from a
work-in-progress patch, for what it's worth:
select s.source, u.changed_by_email
from upload_history u
join sources s
on u.source = s.source
and u.version = s.version
where u.nmu = 't'
and s.release = 'sid'
and s.distribution = 'debian'
and u.changed_by_email in (#{nmu_emails.map { |e| quote(e) }.join(',')})
Of course, uploading key is necessary to list sponsored packages in a
similar manner to DDPO, but I can see that being tricky, since the
main GPG id might not match the maintainer email address...
--
Tim Retout <dioc...@debian.org>
--
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/CADc0ge8eF=UaTTm6RW0x222arWcfqG5yS8maRnz09mg==8x...@mail.gmail.com
