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

Re: Too much disruptive NMUs


On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:23:25PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:32:02 -0700
> tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:
> > I sponsored the upload of a number of Jari's fixes.  You state that
> > they were disruptive, but I'm wondering to whom.  The uploads were to
> > delayed queues and the maintainer notified via the BTS, and in all
> > cases where the maintainer actually ACK'd the bug report or NMU, we
> > discussed the matter with the maintainer and/or removed the NMU from
> > the delayed queue.
> > 
> > In most cases (it may be all for the packages Jari and I worked on),
> > the maintainers never responded whatsoever to bug reports that were
> > over a year old, nor to the intent to NMU, so in a sense they could be
> > considered them QA uploads.  I.e., if a developer can't be bothered to
> > even respond to a bug in the Debian BTS, then the package is
> > essentially orphaned. 
> Then the process, as I see it, would be for the person making the
> proposed NMU to file the bug to orphan the package instead, wait the
> length of time that the proposed upload would have waited in the
> delayed queue, or maybe a bit longer, and then make a QA upload (or
> adopt the package) without using the delayed queue.

I have made few NMU upload like this myself.

Maintainer was very quiet on BTS and not updating package at all for
something like a year.

But he always responded at the last moment that he wanted to keep the
maintainer position.  After a NMU and several months, it repeated and I
made delayed NMU and got the same response.  (I told him to orphan but
he practically rejected idea by action.)  Now I got him to accept me as
uploader, next upload may not be NMU but I feel this is not the optimal

Since original package had no-so-optimal cdbs usage and funny unused
codes, I decided to use dh7 and clean these up.  In the course, I
switched from cdbs -p0 patch to 3.0 (quilt).

Really, issue is "Debian does not have reasonable rule for hijacking or
automatic orphaning". If some maintainer is totally quiet on BTS report
for over 2 months, he should loose maintainer-ship.  The same goes if
the maintainer has not uploaded new upload after reminded by bug report
for 2 months without reply, he should loose maintainer-ship.  If he had
"I am maintaining this" without clear technical reason not-to-package
new version, this should apply too. (If he has real reason, of course he
should keep it.)

(I like idea of DM but DM should not think that their first upload
can be changing only "DM-Upload-Allowed: yes" without bug fix.  Is this
documnted somewhere?)


PS: mail made with "From: osamu@debian.org" got bounced.

Reply to: