On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:49:08AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If we would converge on a good rule of thumb to replace the nth NMU in
> a row to a QA orphaning, then I believe that the updated NMU section
> in the Developers Reference would then stay unchanged for a long time.
I do see value in what you're proposing and I suspect it already happens
even in the lack of a good rule of thumb. All in all, it seems to me
that the two are rather separate concerns: NMUs are for temporarily get
unstuck a package wrt some specific bug, whereas orphaning is a more
generic activity to ensure people do now believe a package is maintained
while in fact it is not. But having a rule of thumb won't hurt, I guess,
as long as it remains so rather than a rule carved in stone to complain
against when it is not followed to the letter (something we're rather
prone to).
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature