Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:13:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:35:25PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Standard procedure for NMU's was considerably relaxed (or rather,
> > clarified) this winter by the release manager. The developers reference
> > is just that: a reference of typical best practice. Sometimes it's
> > expedient to not follow its every letter, and that's ok.
>
> I think that doing things for "expediency" can come back to haunt us. If
> NMUs are not properly logged in the BTS, maintainers can miss them and end
> up uploading newer versions later that lack the NMU code.
Yeah. I did several perl 5.8 NMUs this weekend (all to the delayed
queue), but all of them are filed in the BTS. I don't think aj intended
that routine procedure to be changed.
> I'm concerned that a single person has the power to dictate such dramatic
> changes in our procedures.
There was quite a bit of discussion about it, mostly centred around the
fact that there are a quite unreasonable number of bugs mired with
inactive maintainers. The DELAYED queue is a fantastic tool to encourage
people to fix bugs while still giving maintainers warning of the
proposed changes well before they're actually made.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: