Re: Let's be friends. (Non-maintainer uploads made easier)
joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen) wrote on 24.10.97 in <[🔎] m0xOlbh-000CL6C@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl>:
> > Unless I am missing something, this proposal actually
> > restricts the candidates for non-maintainer uploads; I also fail to
> > see how it makes non-maintainer uploads any easier.
That's also my impression.
> Yes, you are missing something: the "friends" uploads are considered
> to be basically the same as maintainer uploads; the "friends" uploads
> are *encouraged*. Maybe a better name of "friend" would
> be "Vice-Maintainers", or, "Replacement-Maintainers", in that, when
> the real maintainer is away, the "friends" take on the role of the
> real maintainer.
And just how does this make non-maintainer uploads easier?
I really don't see the point. The maintainer can always tell other people
to go ahead, make a NMU (we see this happen all the time).
Just what, exactly, will be different under the proposed scheme?
(You say that the current scheme is equivalent to Friends: nobody. Seems
to me that it rather is equivalent to Friends: debian-keyring instead.)
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: