Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation (was something else)
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
[...]
>> > Then you shouldn't be doing an NMU on it. When you NMU something you
>> > take responsibility for it temporairly until the maintainer gets back.
>> Could you point the poor stupid monkeys we are to the relevant part of the
>> policy or developer reference or whatever other document ? I really do not
>> understand what let you think about NMU that way, especially after the last
>> bits of the RM...
> The RM is the one who said we should be "taking more care doing NMUs
> than doing your own packages".
Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question.
[...]
> I've pointed out numerous times in this thread already why it's wrong to
> believe that you can NMU a package without having any responsibility to
> it afterwards, except maybe for the bits you changed. Having that kind
> of an attitude is detrimental to the distribution as a whole.
[...]
I've loosely followed the thread but your only argument in favour of
this statement seems to be that if people NMU'd to upgrade the
translation there will be an delay in us recognizing the package missing
a proper maintainer and orphaning or removing it.
I do not think that argument holds, an unmaintained package will show
other signs of negligance, and the qa people checking for unmaintained
packages know how to differ between NMU and maintainer upload.
I'd like to see an answer to
<[🔎] 20030822150035.GD24314@tennyson.netexpress.net>, BTW.
cu andreas
--
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
Reply to: