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.
Anyway you can always attach patches in BTS. If some maintainers are so
pride to rant for a NMU, maybe they could use your patches without
ranting ;) And some of their bugs could be solved at last.
And this is the only thing that has importance.
Francesco P. Lovergine