Hi!
On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 13:57:49 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt 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:
>
> - It applies to all DMs listed as M
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:21:36PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > This is slightly annoying but given that maintainership changes
> > involve an upload too, it hardly seems fatal. Has this been a problem
> > in practice ?
>
> I think this has been answered by Gerfried's[2] and David's[3] mail
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt 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:
I have read three responses to th
gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Planned changes to Debian Maintainer uploads"):
> 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
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
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
>
* 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
On 12873 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Do you plan to switch all *.commands to structured syntax as part of
> this change, or do you rather plan to have both structured and oneliner
> syntaxes coexist?
We plan on having it a new extension and let debianqueued ignore it
entirely, as it w
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 the DM-Upload-Allowed field
> has a few issues we would
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 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:
Hi Ansgar, thanks for the
On 06/10/2012 01:57 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 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:
Good idea!
> We will also drop the check
Le Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:57:49PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> Archive: ftp.debian.org
>
> Action: dm
> Fingerprint: [...]
> Allow:
> a-source
> another-source
> Deny:
> yet-another-source
> Reason:
> We want people
Hi,
On 10.06.2012 13:57, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 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:
the idea looks sensible and good and I wel
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The ftp team wants to change how allowing Debian Maintainers to upload
> packages works.
Excellent, I have wanted this change for a while.
> The current approach with the DM-Upload-Allowed field
> has a few issues we would like to addres
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 like to address:
- It applies to all DMs listed as Maintainer/Uploaders. It is
36 matches
Mail list logo
