* Steve Langasek (vorlon@netexpress.net) wrote: > Hmm, are we sure the NMUer didn't just do this as a lark, knowing your > position on NMUs generally? ;) Considering he uploaded like three versions I tend to doubt it. > Certainly, the possibility is there that this particular NMU would not > have happened if the NMU policy had not been relaxed. But honestly, for I don't think it would have, and my time fixing the broken NMU would have been better spent. > as long as this BSP lasted (and as many NMUs were done during the > period[1]), the casualty rate seems to be a lot better than in previous > BSPs where 0-day NMUing was *not* allowed. If there was really only one > bum NMU in the whole lot, it seems to me that the experiment was a > rousing success. Or, alternatively, this was the only crappy NMU that was noticed while quite a few others were made against ancient packages with inactive maintainers who didn't notice or didn't care. I'm not terribly interested in going through all the NMUs done and attempting to prove this but I find it more likely than the possibility that only one poor NMU was done during that period. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature