On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:04:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2006, 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. > A sponsored NMU basically means taking the patch for the NMU just like > you would from a RC bug that had a patch, testing it just like you > would normally, and making the upload just as you would for any other > NMU. > Since you're responsible for the NMU anyway, there's really no > sponsoring going on; you're just using a pre-existing patch as the > basis of your NMU. The difference being that most of the time when someone "sponsors" an NMU, they're effectively shirking their own duty to follow up on the package and ensure that the NMU hasn't introduced any regressions. Often, they're shirking their duty to even check the correctness of the provided patch themselves. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature