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

Re: What doing with an uncooperative maintainer ?



On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 06:15:15PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:01:54AM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > It isn't. There are some nice features in the new version. It's
> > > called "beta", but runs very stable.

> > So there are no non-wishlist bugs that would be fixed by the new
> > upload -- just the addition of new features?

> The NMU would also close a minor bugreport, but that's secondary.

So out of all the changes that have been made in the new upstream, this
upload would only close 2 bugs -- and one of them is the wishlist
request for the new version?

Is it too much to ask that the reasons why the new version should be
uploaded be documented in the BTS as bugs against gqview?  Even "does
not integrate well with the desktop and confuses users" is a minor bug.

As a maintainer, I will often ignore requests for new upstream releases
for long periods of time if it's not clear to me that the upgrade will
fix bugs that are affecting users (where "bugs that are affecting users"
=~ "bugs that have been filed in the BTS").  Bug reports that document
problems with the current version that are fixed in the newer version
are a help to me in deciding how to prioritize my own Debian time.  They
would also give you a much stronger claim on NMUing, since version
conservativism is not inherently a fault.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpHATp1qwBXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: