On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:45:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > > I'm sorry the NMU annoyed you but I welcome it. There is nothing worse > > > than a package that kills buildds, esspecially such a common one. > > I agree. But still LaMont should have expressed his intent to do so, and > > send the patch to the BTS. I don't have a problem with being NMUed, but > > with NMUs prepared improperly. > At this point, any RC bug in an important (as in for the release, not > priority-wise) package is an implicit express to be NMUd, at any time. > Deal with it, we want to release. > One could argue about sending the NMU-patch/interdiff to the BTS, but I > personally do not see much point in it, since (hi Omnic!) you can just > get it from the archive and sync it yourself. It still makes sense for > packages where you suspect the maintainer to be inactive/not willing to > deal with this or (as is the case here apparently) already working on a > new revision. I don't see how this should be a point of contention at all; the requirement that diffs from NMUs be posted to the BTS has been explicit for a very long time. It is the responsibility of the NMUer to ensure that the diffs are delivered to the maintainer for inspection via the BTS. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature