On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote: > 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring > the package into a better maintained state. Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad maintained package and the concept of NMUs together does not help. They do not belong together, and only blur both concepts, so that we only can loose. You NMU because you aren't the maintainer, that's the "Non Maintainer" in "Non Maintainer Upload" and a fundamental difference. Developer's reference clearly states for good reasons that the concept of NMU is house-keeping in someone else's house. It's not your house (yet), so please respect that. We have too many people already, continuously ignoring NMU guidelines and are uploading NMUs with cosmetic changes (e.g. 3.0 conversions) instead. Let's not endorse this. However, what you are proposing is right that: Make your footprints in someone else's package first, and find out later if someone complains loud enough. That's everything but respectful and eventually not going to help finding a way to head over a package to a new maintainer in a way which is a not prone to conflicts. I am not saying you should not NMU packages. People should not be afraid to NMU - but do it an respectful, minimally invasive way. Do the cosmetic perfectionist stuff later, when you are the official maintainer. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature