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

Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:51:22 +0200
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <thijs@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi Arno,
> Thanks for this initiative. It seems like a useful guideline.
> > * A previous NMU was not acknowledged, and at least another issue
> > justifying another NMU is pending for /one month/ [5].
> I was wondering what 'acknowledging an NMU' means nowadays. Of course, we
> all used this term from the time that NMU's did not close bugs in the BTS
> and therefore needed to be explicitly acknowledged by an MU. However,
> since we have version tracking there's no need and I guess also no real
> way to acknowledge a NMU anymore. Or would this just mean "a maintainer
> upload happened after the NMU that didn't revert the changes"?

... or that the changes in the NMU have been applied to the packaging
VCS and will therefore survive into next versions. To me, this is the
biggest part of acknowledgement - even having the packaging in
collab-maint doesn't ensure that the patch gets into the packaging VCS,
risking losing the changes at the next upload.

So it's useful to have a statement acknowledging the NMU in the next
changelog because it gives that assurance when checking the history of
the changelog via the PTS.

> I've had an NMU in the past for a package when I had a little less time,
> but the change was sound and correct. So I didn't bother to make an
> (empty) MU just to acknowledge it - I think that should be OK and not
> 'punished' by taking it as a sign of an unmaintained package.

An empty upload with no purpose other than to acknowledge the NMU
really does seem useless though, true.

If a package is to be salvaged, the VCS may well change as well, so
whether an NMU has been acknowledged or not isn't that useful for the
salvage process.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpX4Vv92fbLm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: