Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > >>There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit* developers from >>sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a sponsored NMU is a broken >>one, because responsibility for the NMU lies with the uploader, not with the >>sponsoree. > > > Does that mean that your opinion is that sponsored NMU's should be > forbidden? I would regret that. It's not bad that someone in the NM > queue also does NMU's to help fixing other packages. And I don't see a > problem with responsability if the sponsor is aware of that > responsability. But maybe I'm missing something? > I would have to agree with Vorlon. Whenever I have wanted to do an NMU (not, I am not yet a DD), I just fix whatever bug and send a patch to the bug. After that, I can announce on IRC or a suitable mailing list for someone to please review the changes, incorporate them and do the NMU. That other person's name goes on the changelog entry, but they always give credit to the originator of the patch (I have not seen a case where it has not been done). In that way, there is a review by a DD and that DD is definitely accepting responsbility, as they are ones patching and uploading. I'm not sure if that is correct, but that is how I have ssen it work. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature