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

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

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.)

Non sequitur, or you are interpreting the term "sponsored NMU"
differently ("I kinda think this should be NMUd, here is a patch,
please upload and take care of all the ugly red-tape"). If somebody
asked me to sponsor a NMU I'd basically apply the same standards to it
as to a regular sponsored package upload. - i.e. it has to follow
policy and developers' reference (which includes: is the NMU called
for?). Therefore the non-DD will have submitted the bug-reports and
patches *before* I sponsor the package.

> 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.

I do not see any reason why we should not. I thought we were trying to
move from the "my package is my castle" mantra, and I'd actually like
to see people prepare their first NMU under the guidance of sponsor.

I do agree that NMUs do need special diligence, which is why we have a
whole point of special rules for them, but I do not agree that they
need special special special diligence by stacking "no NMUs by
non-DDs" atop of the sponsor and common NUM guidelines.
                  cu andreas
PS: Yes, there is still a NMU by me as non-DD in sid. ;-)
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
                    Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel

Reply to: