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

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

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:31:06 -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,

It also forces the sponsor to spend at least to thinking about how
this package (that he otherwise would not have thought about) has a
low-hanging bug, and how uploading the package would make it work that
much. And the fact that the DD takes pity on the non-DD for spending the
time to prepare an NMU makes it more likely that the bug will be fixed

And when a non-DD has to promiscuously solicit sponsors for NMUs on
#debian-devel or #debian-bugs, then a few more people also think about the
fact that there are RC bugs that need to be fixed before we can release.

> so the
> chances of it happening quickly are greatly increased. 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.
> 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.

--Ken Bloom
Not a DD

I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
My key was last signed 08/18/2004. If you use GPG *please* see me about 
signing the key. ***** My computer can't give you viruses by email. ***

Reply to: