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

Re: Sponsoring questions; are sponsored NMU's allowed?

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:19:48PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> > 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.)

> The difference is that the Changed by field will read the name of the
> sponsoree instead of the DD sponsoring. Questions, blame, followup
> should idealy be handled by the sponsoree while the DD only has to
> make sure that that happens.

On the contrary, the DD responsible for the upload is absolutely the
person whose neck I would want to wring for any botched NMUs.  The fact
that you don't understand this, and the fact that you think sponsored
NMUs are reasonable, are related.

> And if it turns out that the last X uploads have all been done by the
> same non DD they can more easily adopt a package than if every upload
> has a different DD on it.

Not significantly.  The fact that the package has had a long history of
NMUs is normally sufficient to show that it's not well-maintained by the
current maintainer.

> As you say there should be 0 difference in the work the DD has to
> do. The only difference is what name to put on it.

Well, y'know, if I'm the one doing the work of vetting the patches in
the BTS, testing them, and uploading, why would I put someone else's
name on the upload?  Credit them for the patches, yes; credit them for
the upload, no.

> > 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.

> So how would I source NMU for example amiga-fdisk?

You wouldn't.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: