Re: Ideas about allowing Co-maintainer
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:53:52AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> writes:
>
> > > [Goswin von Brederlow]
> > > > So we have to go through the "waiting for the maintainer not to
> > > > reply, finding a sponsor, waiting for the delayed NMU to go through"
> > > > cycle for every single one line bugfix instead of doing one NMU that
> > > > will fix 20 bugs in one go?
>
> > > It is OK to fix several bugs at once in one NMU.
>
> > He (you forgot his quote) said he wouldn't Sponsor an NMU but just
> > bugs in the BTS.
>
> And what in that comment, pray, leads you to think that I would be
> uploading NMUs to fix one bug at a time? Do you automatically assume
> that DDs will do things in the least logical way possible? If there are
> multiple bugs in the BTS, with patches, for a package that needs an NMU,
> I'm not going to go to the trouble of NMUing at someone else's request
> and then only fix one bug at a time.
>
> Do not Cc: me; I am subscribed to the list.
If I write a patch and attach it to a bug the patch has to be about
that one bug and has to work on the plain package.
Given 20 bugs with most likely overlapping problems one patch for all
is much simpler than to get 20 patches made that work alone and in
combination (if thats even possible).
Making the presence as patch to a bug in the BTS the decission
criteria for sposnoring looks awfully short sighted to me.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: