Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation (was something else)
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler (ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org) wrote:
>> Parse error. I cannot see a connection between answer and question.
> Life's a beach. There's all of one line in the developer's reference
> which talks about your responsibilities when doing an NMU:
> "Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced
> with your NMU." Now, this works fine when the official maintainer is
> going to follow up; it doesn't work worth a damn if the official
> maintainer isn't taking care of the package at all anymore.
Why? Neither the package, nor its quality nor its state of
unmaintainedness has changed, it just has one (wishlist) bug less.
> Prior to
> doing an NMU you tend to have a pretty good idea which is the case, or
> you should at least.
You'll still have the same pretty good idea about this fact after the
NMU.
>> [...]
>> > 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.
> You've obviously not been paying very much attention at all then.
> You should have a pretty good idea if the package is unmaintained or
> not prior to doing an NMU. If it's not then you're uploading a package
> which fixes some specific bug but leaves the package unmaintained.
> That's irresponsible.
Why? Because "there will be an delay in us recognizing the package
missing a proper maintainer and orphaning or removing it"?
cu andreas
Reply to: