Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Roland Stigge wrote:
> thanks for the update.
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>>After lots of experimentation with NMU policies during the sarge release
>>process, it's pretty clear that permissive NMU policies had a HUGE,
>>positive impact on our ability as a project to cope with outstanding
>>release-critical issues. We don't want that to stop now just because
>>the sarge release is behind us; NMUs don't just speed up the release,
>>they're also great for helping the quality of Debian! For this reason,
>>we would like to continue the 0-day NMU policy from sarge throughout the
>>etch release cycle. But first, we'd like to hear from you, the
>>developers, about what *you* thought did and didn't work with NMUs for
> 0-day NMUs are fine, as long as it is emphasized that it's only
> appropriate if the usual maintainer doesn't work on the issue. I.e. you
> either need to try to contact the developer or only operate on
> reasonably "old" bugs; better both.
> Otherwise things like
> will happen more often, and I expect even more stupid things. As seen in
> this example, we also need to stress that NMUs must be done with special
> care and responsibility. And the NMUer needs to be sufficiently skilled
> to work on packages otherwise unknown to him.
I don't like these pseudo personal attacks. I don't know what you want
to imply about my skills, but I'd rather have that you at least Cc me on
insults like these could be. I hope that this is not meant as one, but
who will say?
You are right that I should have been more careful, though I don't
understand why you build your architecture independent package in
binary-arch instead of binary-indep. You even kept the comments about
architecture independent package intact...
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----