Re: 0-day NMUs for RC bugs without activity for 7 days?
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> So, my experience with #624819 was basically this. The bug was
> reported, followed by an NMU upload about 45 minutes after the bug was
> initially reported. Please don't misunderstand. I appreciate that the
> submitter was proactive. However, emailing the patch first and giving
> me a few days would have been nice.
As the reporter+NMUer, let me apologize and try to explain my reasoning: I
was in the process of uploading a new upstream release for PySide (including
shiboken, which is libsparsehash-dev's only reverse build-dependency in the
archive) and bumped on that issue, hence reported it (with a patch, applied
by the upstream authors of shiboken; which revealed itself to be
insufficient, but still).
A side-reason for the speed of the NMU, was that I noted that the Maintainer
of the package, "Athena Capital Research <firstname.lastname@example.org>" hadn't
proved to be very responsive to bug reports:
But that was clearly not enough, and I shouldn't have taken that
unresponsiveness for granted.
> Since the NMUer made changes directly to the source files, I have to back
> out the patch and convert it over to quilt (I use quilt on all my
> packages). So, his helpfulness actually created more work.
That criticism is unfair (although I understand it), as this package is not
currently using quilt (nor is in 3.0 (quilt) format). AFAIK, adding new
build-dependencies (quilt in this case) and/or adding/changing patch systems
is usually considered a too big change for a NMU.
But I can prepare the quilt patch for you if you want.
> Another thing to note is that while the NMU was uploaded to DELAYED/2,
> the upload was actually ACCEPTed about 24 hours after the upload.
Yep, I was really too impatient on that case, and rescheduled it after one
day. At the time, I considered it harmless, but at the light of your mail,
it appears that I clearly overpassed the NMU rules; I am sorry for that (and
be assured that it will not happen again).