Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:31:06PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:45:31 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > 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 difference is in how quickly the package gets fixed. If I file a
> patch w/ the BTS, and wait for someone to fix it, it might take a long
> time. Alternatively, if I ask a sponsor to NMU a package, they may or may
> not be interested in doing that (depending on how busy they are, whether
> they use the package, whether they have the hardware/environment to
> properly test the package, etc). However, if I have a NMU package
> prepared for the sponsor, that's one less step for the DD to do, so the
> chances of it happening quickly are greatly increased.
If the developer is not interested in doing the NMU and is too lazy to
apply a patch and test it, THAT DEVELOPER SHOULD NOT BE UPLOADING THE
PACKAGE. How can you even question that?
> Let's also not forget that a package may have multiple RC bugs open,
> it will take more time for a DD to build a package w/ patches from
> various bug reports, versus an already prepared (and presumably
> tested) .diff.gz.
See above.
> Ultimately, it's a trust issue; you might find it dangerous for a DD
> to trust the non-DD, but that's the path that Debian has chosen by
> making sponsorship a requirement for NM, and the NM process itself so
> drawn out.
Sponsorship isn't a requirement for NM.
--
Blast you and your estrogenical treachery!
Reply to: