Re: I would liek to know your oppinion on LowThresholdNmu
On 03/08/06, Linas Žvirblis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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.
I think this is clear to everybody in the team :-)
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?
Maybe, just maybe, we do not cover *all* the fields in which a problem
might apply ;-) ?! OTOH, vacations, real life, and similar things
could impeede us, as a team, to fix an issue in time, especially if is
> 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.
See my other mail; add a note to always contact the team, but wait a
little less than for a usual NMU (3 days instead of 7). Would that be
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>
I don't think that this is wise. One person (in a hurry, or which does
not download the source, etc) could contact the person in the
mainatner field just because the Uploaders field does not show up:
$ apt-cache show vdrift | grep @
Maintainer: Debian Games Team <email@example.com>
So you might end up with people contacting the peroson which is now on vacation.
Every member of the team should be subscribed to
firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com, so the
responsible person would step up anyway, if is present. IMHO, the
scheme you are proposing is more disadvanageous than helpful.
Just my 2 random monetary units,
I think you mean "random monetary subunits" ;-)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein