Re: Debian bug-squashing party may involve your packages
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 at 11:51:40 +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > As it should be announced in the near future on debian-devel-announce,
> > we're holding a Debian bug-squashing party in two weeks' time to try and
> > decrease the number of bugs that have the potential to hold up the
> > release of woody. This mail is to let you know in advance that some bugs
> > in your packages are on the list of bugs we might ask volunteers to
> > target.
> Thanks for the notice. You touch my packages and I make a riot.
> I'm not what I would call "inactive", "missing", "unresponsive" or
> "out of touch".
Well, I'm aware of that, but, as I said, I did this mostly
automatically; there was too much to do it any other way. This whole
thing was prompted by comments on -devel, and, since I'm certainly aware
people involved there are active, going through and excluding people I
knew to be responsive made no sense at all.
> As usual, patches are welcome, as well as bug submissions thru the
> appropiate channels. NMUs are not, unless you have a really damn
> good reason for them (and a request from me wouldn't hurt either). I
> appreciate the effort, but I really dislike the tone of this notice.
I tried as hard as I could to make it polite, and to put it across that
the best situation from the point of view of bug-squashing is if we
don't have to do any NMUs. If I got it wrong somehow (and I did talk to
some other QA people), I'd appreciate knowing how so that I can improve
things if I have to do this again.
> In particular, the bug that prompted this notice *has* seen activity
> since the last BSP.
As I said on -devel, the criterion I used was the mtime of the bug being
older than one week. This gives three weeks' inactivity if the bug isn't
touched until the BSP (if people want two weeks' notice of even
potential NMUs, then this is about the best I can do); as I think I also
said, bugs active between now and then are also excluded, as normal.
Perhaps this wasn't clear enough.
I'm afraid the space of bugs is just too large for me, or any one
person, to go through it in a reasonable time and work out with all the
variables involved what might or might not need an NMU, so it seemed
that it was safer to contact too many people than too few - even if my
inbox does end up a bit on the full side as a result.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]