[Debichem-devel] RFS: gausssum (updated package)

[Jordan Mantha]

On 8/14/07, Michael Banck <mbanck at debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> > Well, the issues I saw where the changelog being a mess, switching
> > >from python-central to python-support, not properly documenting a NMU,
> > and generally being impatient with our sponsor.
>
> I had another look at the subversion history, and I think I now know why
> a big chunk of this confusion resulted: You checked the 1.0.3-2 package
> into debichem subversion and then uploaded 1.0.4-1 later on, but nobody
> ever realized it wasn't in subversion.
>
> Fast forward half a year, and Li makes changes to the package based on
> the 1.0.3-2 code in subversion.  So he didn't switch from python-central
> to python-support, he just did the same you did in 1.0.3-2->1.0.4-1
> albeit using the other python packaging support method, ignorant of your
> prior changes.

Ah, that explains a lot. I wondered why in the world there would be
two 1.0.4-1 changelog entries.


> Maybe we(I) should add this to some checklist, i.e. make sure no other
> version got uploaded to ftp.debian.org in the meantime (e.g. somebody
> non-debichem-team could've NMUd for one reason or another in the
> meantime).

Yes, it's probably a good idea. On the other hand, I'm not used to
using VCS repos to manage packages so I need to be better about making
sure anything I do gets committed to the repo. I suspect that's maybe
what happened with 1.0.4-1 although I would've thought I would have
committed it.

> > Giving 2 days for Michael to respond before emailing a RFS to
> > debian-mentors seems really odd to me. Perhaps I don't understand the
> > "Debian way" yet, I'm not sure.
>
> I have to admit I was less than good in sponsoring some of the debichem
> packages in the past, but yeah, it should be possibly to keep it on
> debichem-devel in general and not having to resort to debian-mentors.
>
> > At this point, I'm really not as interested in GaussSum as perhaps LI
> > is and since he has been doing a lot of work, I'd like to consider
> > either handing maintainership over to him or to debichem as a whole. I
> > know we had a discussion some months back about having the mailing
> > list be the Maintainer, do we have a conclusion to that?
>
> I think we should go forward with this, to make things more clear.  I
> still think a list as Maintainer: would be best to avoid things like
> this (and keep track about who mostly cares for what in the hypothetical
> debichem part of wiki.debian.org and via Uploaders:), as it would make
> sure all upload and bug notices are in a central place and relieve one
> person of having to take responsibility for the changes others do.
>

I'm OK with debichem as Maintainer and LI as Uploader for gausssum

-Jordan