Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:25:30AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:19:17PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:16:11AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Technically it wasn't. The upload is still in the DELAYED queue, which
> > > is really just a convenient automated way of saying "I'll NMU this
> > > package in <n> days if I don't hear anything", with the added bonus of
> > > allowing the maintainer to poke at it and see exactly what would go in
> > > in the absence of a maintainer upload. I usually explain this when using
> > > the delayed queue.
> >
> > I assume you also submit a bug.
>
> Quite.
Would you agree that performing an NMU without a BTS entry is wrong?
> > Do you generally do this without leaving a bug for a few days first?
>
> In the case of the perl transition I've been given to understand by the
> actions of other developers that the -devel-announce post on 31st July
> was enough. Otherwise no.
I see.
Well, I disagree with this (as do I believe some others), but only
in that no NMU should be done until the bug has existed for a few
days (if nothing else, this addresses the distinct possibility of
NMUs actually breaking stuff, which has already been brought up in
this thread). I'm probably not going to convince you of this, any
more than you will convince me that I'm wrong here. I have not,
however, been hit with this general case...I've been hit with an
irresponsible maintainer performing an NMU without submitting a
bug at all, even if it was 5 minutes before he uploaded. This is
just plain wrong, and something that can cause us really serious
problems if people start to imagine that it's acceptable -
especially since we have little control over which keys can
successfully upload any given package.
--
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_
Reply to: