Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:46:41 -0500, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> said:
> This is the sticking point, I think. Are we talking about resolving
> the possible problems *from* NMUing, or are we talking about
> resolving any problems that happen to show up after the NMU? I
How can one distinguish between the two, without
investigation? Often bugs are caused by the darndest things, and some
of the worst are the "can't happen" category bugs.
> absolutely agree that an NMUer is responsible for fixing any
> problems caused by the NMU, but I don't agree that NMUers should be
> held responsible for pre-existing bugs in the package -- whether or
> not they happened to be exposed by the NMU in question.
If you upload caused things to get worse for the users of the
package, you are responsible. If the upload has changed things for
the worse, you should try and fix it. The very least you *must* do is
monitor the package to ensure that your NMU is not causing problems.
> If that's the case, I have no inclination whatsoever to NMU buggy
> packages -- I'd much rather file for their removal from the archive.
No one is holding a gun to your head. You are a volunteer, and
can't be forced to NMU.
> Holding NMUers accountable for the quality of their uploads: yes.
Quite. If your upload caused the situation to deteriorate,
whether you deliberately caused the change that made it so or it was
inadvertent, you are responsible.
manoj
--
"OK, now let's look at four dimensions on the blackboard." Dr. Joy
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: