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

NMU ultimatum within less then 12h is rude (was: Bug#118388: intent to NMU merlin-cpufire)

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:22:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Because it's my job to improve the build-percentage of the ia64
> architecture.  Note the address from which I am sending this message.

It is surely not your job to attack developers 12h after a build failure was
reported and put them under the pressure that you cause them a lot of
additional work. It wont speed up the moving of the package into stable
anyway, since most likely your NMU would be reuploaded by me before the
package was long enough in testing to proceed to stable.

Do NOT touch and NMU any of my packages UNLESS you send me a patch for a Bug
and I refused/was unable to put it into the package for weeks (if it does
not break anything besides that package).

If anybody dares i will be PISSED OFF...

I have a lot of bugs which are years old and nobody bothers to offer me
help. On the other hand i get regularly pressure to upload trivial bugs
within hours or days. This is NO FUN. Especially for a "optional" X11 toy
with no dependencies and no remarkable ranking in the usage-contest.

And especially If the NMU is broken (like some used to be) or imperfect
(like that would be).

> > Plase spend your time on more serious bugs. I will fix this. Perhaps you do
> > not notice, but setting a 4-day ultimatum is not friendly. Personally I
> > consider it offensive for no good reason. So I hope we can stop that and get
> > back to normal communication. Thanks for the patch.
> I'm sending this mail to debian-devel so people can discuss about the above.
> Put simply, I do not agree.  Your package has a release-critical defect and
> if you don't correct it, I will.

The bug is now less than 12h old. Do I need to say more?

> No, you have to comply with the Policy Manual anyway.  The version number
> indicates, IIRC, that you are cognizant of the Policy version specified.  I
> am, and as you note, you are as well.

Nope, you bumped the standards version and you claimed to be compatible with
the new standard but you where NOT. This would have given me an additional
Bug Report. And snce there was another (better) patch already in the BTS I
might think it is actually possible to be more carefull.

If you keep your policy of causing work I ask you to step down from that
"job" you think you have. I realy think it is a great job to maintain X, and
I guess it is a lot of work....

  (OO)      -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wendelinusstrasse39.76646Bruchsal.de --
 ( .. )  ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
  o--o     *plush*  2048/93600EFD  eckes@irc  +497257930613  BE5-RIPE
(O____O)  When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!

Reply to: