[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sponsoring questions; are sponsored NMU's allowed? (Was: Re: Canonical list of contributors)

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:41:02PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> A last question: what about sponsored NMU's? I've had at least one NMU
> ready to be sponsored & uploaded, plus pondered to do it multiple times,
> often invited by DD's. Is it allowed as a non-DD to do NMU's? Or are
> NMU's really a DD-only privilege?

The comments about sponsored NMUs were actually mine.  I don't believe
there's any valid reason for sponsored NMUs; the responsibility of the
NMU preparer is such that there should be exactly 0 difference between
the actions taken by a DD uploading his own NMU and a DD uploading an
NMU at the prompting of a non-DD, so there's no sense in referring to
this as a sponsored NMU unless the DD is doing something wrong.  (E.g.,
all patches that are part of an NMU should be in the BTS before the NMU
is done, so the DD can easily grab them from there without having a
non-DD prepare a source package that includes them.)

If this is an issue of NMs wanting to be credited for their involvement,
either NMs are placing too high of importance on having their name in
the changelog, or we as a community are placing too little importance on
the work that our non-DDs are doing in submitting good patches to the
BTS and following through on getting DDs to look at packages that need

Are sponsored NMUs allowed?  They are allowed in the sense that there's
nothing in place to prevent them.  But I don't see any reason why we
would want to encourage the practice.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: