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

Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 04:30:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > You're still making the maintainer take explicit action to stop
> > something that he already said they didn't want to happen.
> For a time, this is how regular nmus were greeted, but as a project,
> we've gotten over that unwarranted stigma and recongnized nmus as
> valuable contributions that do a lot to help when the maintainer (for
> whatever reason) isn't getting around to fixing his/her own problems.

It seems to me that you and Russ are talking about different NMU
contexts. Russ seems to be referring to a context where the maintainer
is against some specific changes and had made that clear. In that case,
NMU won't help going around the maintainer objection. An NMU in such a
situation will very likely be badly received.

You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to a context where the
maintainer is not against some changes and, in fact, might even welcome
them, but simply hadn't had time to deliver. In that case NMUs would in
most case be welcome, and they *should* be welcome as long as they're
done properly.

(But, if I may, it looks like we're diverging quite a bit in this
sub-thread, whereas there seems to be agreement on the timings, at

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: