Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking
>>>>> "Ari" == Ari Pollak <email@example.com> writes:
Ari> I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for
Ari> the xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time
Ari> and sponsors of uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy
Ari> as well, he ended up taking most of the responsibility. This
Ari> was a similar situation; however, I felt it was necessary at
Ari> the time considering the circumstances of the package having
Ari> not being updated in over a year and a half despite new
Ari> versions being out which fixed bugs, and the lack of any
Ari> response from the package maintainer until after the NMU. I
Ari> still doubt that I would have gotten any response from the
Ari> maintainer at all had it not been for the actual package
Do you specifically agree it was wrong in this instance to upload
directly to incoming and not to a delayed queue?
In future will you agree to include NMU patches in a bug report to the
patch and unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise to upload to
a delayed queue?
I'm asking you these things in hope of making sure we're on the same
page. If you don't agree then I'll try to convince you that you're
wrong, but if we are both understanding the best practice the same
way, then there's really no more to say.