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 220.127.116.11), > > 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. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer  By communicate, let it be understand that I do not mean lambasting the maintainer on mailing lists.
Description: PGP signature