Re: Quality Assurance Group mini-policy
On Jun 06, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Wichert> I don't like this very much. For example I did a NMU of ssh to
> Wichert> add PAM supports. I made some errors there and ended up doing two
> Wichert> more NMU's to fix those. According to those rules the packages
> Wichert> could have been marked orphaned since I did 3 uploads in as many
> Wichert> days. I suggest removing the `3 consecutive bugfix uploads' from
> Wichert> that paragraph.
>
> Replace it with "no upload in three (months|weeks|)" ? We have to do
> something about maintainers who are MIA.
The implication I get from the paragraph is that the package could be
orphaned after two months if 3 bugfix uploads have occurred in that
time, i.e.:
March 1: maintainer uploads package.
March 15: bugfix
March 17: bugfix
April 3: bugfix
May 1: package is orphaned; last maintainer upload was March 1, which
was 2 months ago.
Since all the maintainer has to do to make the package no longer
orphaned is do an upload between March 15 and May 1, incorporating any
of the NMUs, I don't see a problem.
However, I do make 2 recommendations: that the time period be
expressed in non-variable units (i.e. days or weeks), and the time
period begins when the first NMU takes place. So my recommendation
would be:
``However, if QA Group members make 3 consecutive bugfix uploads, with
no action on the part of the maintainer, the package will be marked as
orphaned 60 days after the first QA Group bugfix upload, and the
'Maintainer' field of the package will be set to "Debian QA Group
<debian-qa@lists.debian.org>".''
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | Get your Debian 2.1 CD-ROMs |
| <quango@watervalley.net> | http://www.lordsutch.com/ |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Do you want your bank to snoop? |
| University of Mississippi | http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/ |
=============================================================================
Reply to: