On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 02:53, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Why did you nmu dpkg? I see no mail from you on the mailing list about > >> preparing an nmu. > > Because the package had Release-Critical bugs open against it which, for > > whatever reason, had not been acted upon by the maintainers. All of > > these were over a month old. > [...] > > Of course, you should know all of this already because I mailed a full > > and detailed summary of everything we discussed to you and Wichert (the > > contents of the dpkg Uploaders: field). It made specific mention of our > > intent to upload a version of dpkg to fix the release-critical bugs. > > I mailed it to you personally to ensure you read it, as you haven't been > > active on debian-dpkg for at least a month and Wichert hasn't in the > > past 6 months! For the audience out there, this includes any bug > > activity for dpkg. > [...] > Hello, > Afaict the only thing that is open for discussion is whether you > followed the protocol in developer's reference correctly. > And ticking of the checklist there is just one missing piece of > information - the timeline. How much time did pass between the > "intend to NMU"-mail and the actual upload? (Did you use a DELAYED > queue?) - My gut feeling says that 2-3 days between mailing the > maintainer and uploading the package to ftp-master would have been > appropriate (7 days - (release-cycle bonus + rc-bug bonus)). The waiting period is not an end unto itself, but a guideline to protect against unnecessary duplication of effort or botched uploads. It sounds pretty clear to me that the first was not an issue, so if the NMU was *correct*, there's no reason to crucify Scott here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature