Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:28:42AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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.
In this case, no bug was ever submitted. I am also not an inactive
maintainer; I deal with bugs in my packages in an expedient manner,
when they are submitted properly.
The NMU was made before I was in any way contacted.
Had bugs been submitted, I would not have even uploaded the package
that ended up being NMU'd; there's a new version of the library out
as of a couple of weeks ago, and I would have knocked out both at
the same time (as I am doing shortly, after this apt-get finishes).
There are a number of maintainers who seem to have agreed that the
way this NMU was done is incorrect.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the fix isn't needed; I don't,
however, appreciate being treated like an MIA maintainer and having
my responsibilities coopted. There is no urgency that requires an
NMU if it's not important enough to file a bug.
Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_