Re: NMU ultimatum within less then 12h is rude (was: Bug#118388: intent to NMU merlin-cpufire)
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 05:56:18PM -0500, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> Lighten up (both of you) - Bernd has a point, doesn't want someone creating
> a mess he has to clean up later. Branden has just as valid a point - he
> is BEING PAID to work on ia64 compatibility of packages, and can devote
> time to fixing build problems on the ia64. Why can't the two of you work
> *together* to solve the problem, instead of getting in a public pissing
> match that does no good for anyone (except suck up bandwidth)?
Because Branden is not the only one doing that, and my point is much more
deeper. If it is (anywhere) agreed to have a 4-day idle limit for uncritical
updates the debian project is surely not for me anymore.
So I'm interested what the fellow developers oppinion is.
BTW: the package is updated, including 5 bugs closed.
And I agreee completely with you, that Bug Squashing Parties arent much
better. They made me feel bad, too.
I have so many open bugs I would love to see a patch... I habe NO package I
want to see a NMU.
BTW: if you have the time to look at it, fix the recursion tests in adns in
ia64 for me, Branden.
Greetings
Bernd
Reply to: