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

Re: NMU procedure

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 08:21:25PM +0000, Hector Oron wrote:
> I do really apologize in case we have miss something, we'll try to do
> better next time.

Thanks for this followup Hector.

FWIW, no one said those NMUs were not welcome and it's in fact nice to
see you're pushing for armhf. Julien's (very valid!) points were on two
specific aspects: the lack of NMU notifications to the bug logs and the
lack of nmudiffs.  Please ensure you fix those, possibly starting from
the NMUs which are already in DELAYED.

For the random lurkers: current NMU guidelines are quite liberal in the
usage of the DELAYED queue, but require that the NMU-ed maintainer, as
well as other bug lurkers, are put in the best possible position to
catch up with the NMU-ed work.

Everyone following:


won't have any problem with NMUs.

/me, still campaigning for NMUs as the best device we have to fight
inertia. Cheers.
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: