Re: I would liek to know your oppinion on LowThresholdNmu
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> I'm not very aware of the consequences. I think being a group makes it
> absolutely different than a single maintainer for NMUs, as even in case
> someone is busy or on holidays, someone else will be present.
Does working in a team not imply that any team member can NMU ones
packages without a delay? I think we should agree that it does.
If there is nobody in a team qualified enough to fix a problem in
package of another team member, than what kind of team is that anyway?
> I don't really like the part that says: "You don't need to contact the
> maintainers beforehand", I think in case of a group the proper way would be to
> coordinate the changes with the group.
I also do not like this part. In my opinion, one should always contact
the maintainer (or a team). The time one should give him/her/them to
respond should, of course, depend on the severity of the problem.
> I don't have much problems with the part "you don't need to use a
> delayed upload queue".
Delayed queue is silly most of the time. If you did not receive a reply
from the maintainer for time 'n', than there is no point in waiting for
'n+delay'. It only makes sense when you already have an NMU prepared,
and upload it at the same time you contact the maintainer. But that most
probably means duplicate work.
> Anyway I don't really have a strong opinion on that. Whatever the rest of the
> group chooses is OK for me.
I am for "no restrictions inside the team, but the usual procedure form
outside the team". As for who the maintainer is, I suggest using this in
our 'control' files:
Maintainer: Firstname Lastname <email@example.com>
Uploaders: Debian Games Team <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Just my 2 random monetary units,