Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:27:58AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> On 01/17/2002 08:39:18 AM Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> >> My personal opinion is that all we need more NMU and BS parties.
> I disagree. There are already too many psycho maintainers whom post rants
> to -devel, that generally contain vague threats of punishment if you dare
> to NMU one of their buggy packages. With current policies, etc, more NMUs
> will cause more annoying rants, hurt feelings, generally the negative stuff
> will outweigh the positive stuff.
> Because of those events, I will not do NMUs, not to anyones packages, not
> at any time. I think other developers have similar beliefs for similar
> reasons. I don't need any more enemies, so why bother with the "dangerous"
> task of NMUing. I must publically compliment the people whom do NMUs as
> What I think we need, is a policy change that dramatically loosens the
> rules about NMUs, to encourage more of them.
> Is it really "free software" if one developer arbitrarily prevents another
> developer from applying a simple patch? I think not.
Bingo.... This is a problem. No NMUs implies no bug solving.
Maybe QA group should ensure this kind of things. If someone propose
a patch on BTS AND the maintainer does not use it within a a couple of weeks,
the QA people have to NMU, if the patch looks good.
Stop. No rants, no complaints, no stupid discussions. Two weeks is
a very reasonable period of time to work on many RC bugs, as I can see.
The only exception should be considered for teams (boot-floppies and so on),
where the probability that an entire group of developers is
permanently out-of-mind is little.
This thing should be do, and it should be do soon.
Hey folks, there is a good deal of trivial RC bugs going around ...
Francesco P. Lovergine