[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Installed sather 1.2.1-5 (i386 all source)

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:58:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 06:24:02PM +0100, Guillaume Morin wrote:

> > Quoting "7.3 When to do a source NMU"

> > "During the release freeze (see Uploading to frozen, Section,
> > NMUs which fix serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and
> > accepted. Even during this window, however, you should endeavor to reach
> > the current maintainer of the package; they might be just about to
> > upload a fix for the problem."

> In practice this policy is significantly relaxed for bugsquash parties,
> packages that don't build from source, and packages whose maintainers
> are idle or unreachable.

However, if you proceed in accordance with a relaxed version of this
policy, you are no longer in a position of moral authority to assert
that a maintainer is negligent, incapable, or infested with fleas solely
on the grounds that he failed to capture the contents of your NMU in a
timely manner when you neither contacted the package maintainer prior to
the NMU nor uploaded your diff to the BTS.  Or do I misrepresent your
reasons for bringing this issue onto a mailing list?

> I agree that the Policy should better reflect current practice.  Shall
> we go about drafting an amendment?

I disagree that there is any bug in the documentation here.  The race
condition Eray describes in his email as having occurred is precisely
the sort of thing those procedures are intended to prevent.  If a
developer believes a given bug justifies an NMU, and if the developer is
concerned that the bug stay fixed in future uploads and that the
maintainer knows exactly what changes were made in the NMU, then the
burden falls on the author of the NMU to communicate.[1]

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

[1] By communicate, let it be understand that I do not mean lambasting
the maintainer on mailing lists.

Attachment: pgpINsxFifUuD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: