On Sunday, April 22, 2012 04:50:32, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > 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). Stefano, I am very glad you replied and gave further details of the various situations in which you see NMUs as helping the maintainer, including using them for new software versions. I've decided I very much like this point of view of NMUs, and for now I'm going to use your post [1] as my own personal reference for them (at least in general). If possible I'd like to incorporate some of these suggestions into section 5.11 of the Developer's Reference, because I believe this view of NMUs is fairly different than the current written language it contains. For starters I'm going to email this suggestion to the Developer's Reference Team. Thanks very much. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00486.html -- Chris -- Chris Knadle Chris.Knadle@coredump.us GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.