Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Julian Mehnle dijo [Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:05:01PM +0000]: > > I applaud the increasing tendency of Debian maintainers signing up for > > the low-threshold NMU list. But I think the group already serves as > > an institution to distribute the responsibility among many persons. > > I'd support signing up the entire group, too, as long as any NMUers > > commit their NMUs to the group's Subversion repository. > > > > If that's impossible without being a member of the group, then I am > > against it. The group should not have to continually track, and > > reproduce in the repo, NMUs, which are bound to happen relatively > > frequently given the large number of packages maintained by the group. > > Hmmm... Well, that's strange, as you are basically requiring every NMU > to be done by somebody _in_ the group. > > Remember that NMU'd bugs are not marked as closed, but as fixed, and > they still appear in our group's QA page . If the NMU uploader > works as he should, he will send a proper patch to the BTS, and we > will find it. And if we don't care to look for the open bugs in our > packages every now and then, it's not much of a difference if he > uploads to the 7-day delayed queue (standard procedure) or straight to > incoming (low treshold), aas we won't probably take note until the bug > fix is in. I wasn't aware that there was a difference between the "closed" and "fixed" bug stati; thanks for pointing it out to me. If it's easy for us to keep track of what changes were done by outsiders w/o updates to the reposi- tory, then my concerns are pretty much gone. Two provocative questions, though: What real problem is being solved by entering the Perl group into the low-threshold NMU club? Doesn't that make the group mostly pointless? I have no other concerns.
Description: PGP signature