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

Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > The ftp masters have nothing to do with NMUs.
> Precisely my point.  Fixing bugs through NMUs doesn't place any
> additional burden on the ftp masters.  A policy that says "packages will
> be removed from testing/frozen after four weeks if their RC bugs aren't
> fixed" *does* make more work for ftp masters.

The release manager is the one who removes packages from a distribution
when we are in a freeze.
He needs the permissions of a ftp master.
The other ftp masters needn't be involved in this.
So it's perhaps an "additional burden" for the release manager, but anyway
he is also involved in getting everything else running.

> > > The section in the developer's reference on source NMUs has remained
> > > virtually unchanged since the release of potato.  What was considered
> > > best practice then does not seem to be working all that well this time
> > > around.  If the presence of RC bugs is going to be allowed to delay the
> > > freeze, then we as a body need to start treating these packages as if
> > > they're already frozen and NMU appropriately.
> > >...
> > As already said in other mails in this thread:
> > The rules for NMUs aren't the problem.
> I disagree.  The developer's reference says "you should almost never NMU
> to unstable, but NMUs to frozen are ok."  This doesn't work if packages
> never get to frozen because they're in need of an NMU.

You should always try to contact the maintainer first - even within a

How many NMUs did you already do? My experience after _many_ NMUs of other
packages is that in the huge majority of the cases a mail to the
maintainer "Are you working on a fix or can you allow me a NMU?" solved
the problem.

> Steve Langasek


Reply to: