Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
On 01/10/12 09:51, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> 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.
I think it'd be reasonable to expect a maintainer to follow-up to the
BTS in cases like this, just to say "that change looks fine" (and if
the upload is still in DELAYED, give the non-maintainer a chance to
reschedule it to the 0-day queue), e.g.
I also think it's reasonable to expect that people checking whether a
package is "effectively unmaintained" should check such bugs for
activity, and treat the NMU as having been acknowledged (in the
non-jargon sense of the word) if the maintainer replied.
 the same place the non-maintainer (should have) sent the nmudiff:
the bug closed if there was only one, or the new "integrate changes from
NMU 1.2-3" bug otherwise.