On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:56:12AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > On 26/05/2008, Charles Plessy wrote: > > It depends on how important are the VCS and package histories for the > > maintainer and Debian. In order to acknowledge the NMU, it would be > > necessary to revert the current work, apply the NMU patch, merge the > > reverted work and resolve the conflicts. > > It looks to me like the wording of the 3rd paragraph of 5.11.2 is a bit > (too) strong: one must include the patch. It might be relaxed a bit so > that the maintainer is still allowed to implement the changes the way > s/he intends, rather than having to include the very patch sent to the > BTS. The proposal is to use the DELAYED queue as the default way to do an NMU. This means in particular that the code is already finished when the mail about the NMU is sent to the BTS. So there is no reason to allow changes to the patch after this mail; if you need them, cancel the NMU and upload an other one instead (sending the new patch to the BTS). Also note that because of the "do what you think is right, these are only guidelines"-approach, it may be acceptable to cancel an NMU and upload a new one with a very short delay. IMO you shouldn't do that in most cases, but it can happen. Especially if the new patch is almost identical to the previous one. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature