Re: re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:49:37AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Scott James Remnant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 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.
I do not fully agree, in practice a "I'll NMU in 7 days unless I hear
something from you" is perceived by maintainers as "last warning"
and often manages to wake up the maintainer to upload his version
> 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.
I am very sorry if I sounded as if I was going to try to crucify Scott,
_this_ was absolutely not my intention. - I just wanted to know all
the facts, as it is imho not sensible to try to discuss whether agreed
upon procedure has been followed or not if we do not know the facts.
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_