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

Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)

Martin Wheeler <msw@startext.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> >  If you're not able to maintain
> > your packages properly and in a timely manner, and your holding up a
> > major part of the distribution, it's your fault.
> I'm interested in this.
> Individuals differ greatly in their working methods.
> So what is considered: "in a timely manner"?  (Seriously.)
> I have dropped out of several co-operative projects in the past simply
> because I'm a relatively "slow" worker -- i.e. I don't tend to give three
> or four fast responses to collective development _in the same day_.
> I find that sort of speed of progression highly de-motivating.
> Am I alone in this?  (I might take up to a week to respond to any
> particular event -- this is normal for _me_.)
> I'm curious as to what the expectations of other debian-developers are --
> for example, does not being online 24/7 -- or even once a day --
> effectively create a barrier to participation in collective development
> projects in debian?  (Theory would say: No.  But what does _practical_
> experience dictate?)

That completly depends on the problem at hand. For example if the
group is fixing a security bug responding a week later probably
doesn't help and you would be left out.

If you discuss where to go next, what parts to improve or how to
extend the interface of a library or such, discussing it for a month
might be normal and needed to get a proper consensus. 

> So I guess my question really is: what is "timely"; and what is
> "untimely"?
> Where is it defined?  By whom?  Does it make sense?

Its a case to case basis, so it full of errors, opinions and


Reply to: