Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation (was something else)
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:46:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:31:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:35:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > It only means that someone
> > > wanting to do an NMU for some probably minor, not really touching the
> > > package, will not do it because he don't want that responsaibility or
> > > more probably cannot assume it.
> > That's the correct response. If you can't handle the responsibility you
> > shouldn't be touching other people's packages; you should be sending
> > the maintainer patches through the BTS. If someone who can handle the
> > responsibility of NMUing comes along and sees the patch before the
> > maintainer gets around to it, that's all to the good.
> > > No need to attribute
> > > responsabilities to people who possibly cannot fullfill them.
> > If you can't cope with -- ie, resolve -- the possible problems from NMUing,
> > you should not be NMUing.
> This is the sticking point, I think. Are we talking about resolving the
> possible problems *from* NMUing, or are we talking about resolving any
> problems that happen to show up after the NMU? I absolutely agree that
> an NMUer is responsible for fixing any problems caused by the NMU, but I
> don't agree that NMUers should be held responsible for pre-existing bugs
> in the package -- whether or not they happened to be exposed by the
> NMU in question.
> I think that it's generally very silly for someone to NMU a package if
> they don't care enough about it to want to try to resolve any RC bugs
> that show up and keep the package out of testing; but I don't like the
> climate of blame that Stephen Frost's posts seem to be promoting. He
> seems to suggest that NMUers be held even more accountable than the
> packages' maintainers: the worst that happens to a maintainer is that
> he doesn't get to see his package included in the stable release, but it
> sounds like NMUers are going to be roasted three ways from Sunday for
> bugs they didn't actually cause. If that's the case, I have no
> inclination whatsoever to NMU buggy packages -- I'd much rather file for
> their removal from the archive.
BTW, that would be another way of achieving full translation of all
packages in a release, remove all them that don't quickly enough apply
the transition patch :)))