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

Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:31:07PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:22:18 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:09:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > (b) that you were a Debian Developer therefore *could* NMU a package.
> >> 
> >> I don't need to be a DD to NMU something.
> > 
> > Um, yeah you do.  No developer should be signing off on an NMU for a
> > non-DD, ever, especially for a non-DD who was rejected from the NM
> > queue.  Any developer that does that needs to be banned, or at least
> > beaten severely.
> I disagree; there's no reason for a non-DD to not be able to NMU
> something, provided that it looks ok to the sponsor.  If the NMU turns
> out to be unnecessary, forced, or horribly broken, then you can beat the
> developer who signed off on it. Sponsorship is almost completely at the
> discretion of the DD; if they don't feel 100% comfortable sponsoring NMUs,
> then they shouldn't.  There's nothing in the Developer's Reference that
> forbids sponsorship of any class of packages, despite some developers'
> opinion otherwise.

Sponsoring an NMU should be absolutely no different than the developer just
doing the NMU him/herself.  If it is, then that developer is doing
something horrible wrong anyway.

The non-DD may supply a patch to the BTS, and the NMU'ing developer may
use that patch and should credit the submitter of that patch.  That's
all the involvement a non-DD should have.  Anything else is just
dangerous and/or absurd.

Blast you and your estrogenical treachery!

Reply to: