On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:29:46 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not
> >possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM.
> Isn't that the point of listing a DM in the field? Why would you want to
> list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just to put some hard numbers against this to illustrate the scope of the
sponsoring operation through the debian-mentors mailing list, various team
mailing lists and also between individuals, some data from UDD on the
current packages in sid:
Tot
Hi,
On 12.06.2012 00:29, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not
>>possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM.
>
> Isn't that the point of listing a DM in the field? Why would you want to
> list someone as
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not
>possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM.
Isn't that the point of listing a DM in the field? Why would you want to
list someone as a Maintainer and not allow them to upload a package?
Ian Jackson wrote:
> > - It allows DMs to grant permissions to other DMs.
>
> It is far from clear that forbidding this is the right thing to do.
As far as I know, we did this intentionally. When a DM is the maintainer
of a package, they should be able to move it to team maintenance without
need
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> even more, becoming DM seems more and more understood as a suggested and
> advised procedure towards a full DD status. I do not think this is how
> the original endorsement was meant.
>
> Moreover, at least that's my impression from hang
Hi,
On 11.06.2012 22:41, Moray Allan wrote:
> It is extremely disappointing to me (but not surprising) that some
> people even discourage potential new Debian members from joining,
> telling them that DM status should be enough for them.
even more, becoming DM seems more and more understood as a
On 2012-06-11 17:18, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of
DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I
think
that was the intention and presume it still is.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:35:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Then make it contigent on the person having made an upload in the last
> three months or something sensible. Also, I don't think asking a DM to
> be reapproved yearly or every other year would be that onerous.
>
> (It's also the d
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of
> > DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think
> > that was the intention and presume it still is.
>
> I disagr
* Ansgar Burchardt , 2012-06-11, 21:12:
I agree with zack that we shouldn't require DMs to periodically renew
upload permissions for every package. We already require them to
reconfirm their interest to stay DM annually.
BTW, http://bugs.debian.org/debian-maintainers is full of open "annual
p
Hi,
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads"):
> Your proposal simultaneously changes two things:
>
>> - It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is not
>>possible to grant upload permission to only a specific DM.
>
> This
Hi,
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might
> grant somebody rights to a package, but want it to expire within $period
> (or at least be subject to more aggressive QA/MIA checks than a normal
> DD), since I'll be tied to them in a way.
I ag
Hi,
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Hmm, this looks interesting, and useful. I'd like to add a bit as a
> wishlist item: Having this DB easily queriable (i.e. a webpage where
> you can query by key to see all the packages uploadable by a given
> key).
I agree that the information should be easily availabl
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:52:30 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload
> > packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field
> > has a few issues we would like to address:
> Have any of these issues been a problem prac
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of
>> DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think
>> that was the intention and p
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:48:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> That seems like a good idea, if we're in agreement that the point of
> DM is to be a bridge status whilst someone works through NM. I think
> that was the intention and presume it still is.
I disagree that it is always the case. It mi
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:40:16PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might
> grant somebody rights to a package, but want it to expire within $period
> (or at least be subject to more aggressive QA/MIA checks than a normal
> DD), since I
Hi,
On 11.06.2012 17:26, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And just thinking about possible complications: I *hope* we don't see
> any such behaviour, but this format would allow a DD to "censor" a
> given DM's activity. If I send "Deny" actions with somebody's key, it
> ends up blocking that person until some
Ansgar Burchardt dijo [Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200]:
> Hi,
>
> (Please send followup messages to -project.)
>
> The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload
> packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field
> has a few issues we would lik
]] Ansgar Burchardt
> We plan to instead implement an interface where developers upload a
> signed command file to ftp-master to grant upload permissions instead,
> similar to dcut. This could end up looking similar to this:
Could we have an expiration date associated with the grants? I might
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads"):
> (Please send followup messages to -project.)
>
> The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload
> packages works. The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field
> has a few issues we would l
* Jon Dowland [2012-06-10 20:52:30 CEST]:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > (Please send followup messages to -project.)
> >
> > The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload
> > packages works. The current approach with
Jon Dowland writes:
>
> Have any of these issues been a problem practically, yet? Or are they
> just potential problems for the future?
>
I'm not sure if this counts as a practical problem in your view, but it
is rather common for DMs to set the DMUA flag in an initial request for
sponsorship. In
24 matches
Mail list logo
