On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 05:17:54PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > And, as Steve pointed out, translation stuff is minimalistically > > invasive so this does not require an enormous amount of attention > > after the NMU. > When you do an NMU you're taking the responsibility to maintain the > package until the maintainer is active on it. If you're not willing (or > able) to handle the package just for a translation then you shouldn't be > doing the NMU just for the translation. > > But, sorry, if a RC bug is raised which is obviously unrelated to the > > things I changed, why should I care for it more than the normal wayt > > (ie, if by chance I can deal with it...I *will* do just like I would > > with any RC bug I'm able to fix....but if I'm perfectly unable to fix > > it besides tagging the bug "help", what should be done ?) > Maintainers aren't always able to fix RC bugs themselves so you should > do exactly what the maintainer would do in such a case since it's > against your NMU, even if it's unrelated to the specific change in your > NMU it's still your NMU so it's your responsibility. The maintainer > would probably tag it with help and work with upstream to find a fix for > it. Er. You're going to hold NMUers responsible for the general crappy state of a package before they got to it? Are you also going to concede to them the authority to request the package's removal from the archive without the maintainer's consent, or is your position specifically formulated to discourage QA work? Responsible NMUing means taking responsibility for *your changes* to the package and any bugs that may result from them. It does not mean being stuck with the responsibility for fixing all new bugs filed against the package, like the loser of a game of hot potato. That makes no more sense than to say "an NMUer is responsible for all open bugs on the package unless the maintainer uploads." -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpIm5ZOp96Dn.pgp
Description: PGP signature