On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:24:40 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: FWIW, I have no strong opinion if something about NMU rules should be in the RT delegation; just adding some experiences / data points: > > Do you see a problem with the current NMU recommended practices, that > > you would like to fix? [...] > Well, Neil raised the question of bug squashing parties. They aren't > mentioned in the dev ref. From my experience, I never had the need for different NMU practices/rules during BSPs. NMUs are NMUs, no matter if I'm sitting at home fixing RC bugs or around a table with other Debian guys. Looking into the d-d-a archives, I find something about NMUs during BSPs in May 2007 (<20070513172244.GA14578@solar.ftbfs.de>) for the last time, and then (and since then, e.g. <47CCF6CE.7050004@debian.org> in March 2008) the "everlasting BSP" announcement in September 2007 (<20070901130447.GH27719@zomers.be>). AFAICS this made its way into DevRef via #625449 in March 2011. In <20110329095102.GX37987@feta.halon.org.uk> (which leads to this bug / DevRef change), the RT mentions that the "perpetual 0-day NMU policy ... has worked well for the past five years, and so will be submitting a bug against dev-ref to make this official." > Also, the release team have historically occasionally put out > announcements that NMU rules would be relaxed for other reasons, such > as for release goals. The last occurrence I found in a quick look in the d-d-a archives was from March 2009. (<20090302105458.GA3762@rivendell>) > So I think the current dev ref text doesn't reflect our recent > practice. My impression is different: I think recent (as in: quite a few years already) practice is exactly as it's written down in DevRef. > > I'm asking because the current ones have been > > defined 2.5 years ago, and I don't remember much discussion about them > > since then. Maybe we could save everybody's time, and have that > > discussion about who is allowed to change them when there's a change > > that someone wants to do. > Perhaps it's just that everyone had thought that the release team's > announcements are sufficient to make exceptions to the rules in the > dev ref. Maybe, except that there haven't been any I'm aware of since the last DevRef change :) > But AFAIAA pretty much everyone has gone along with it all this time > and deferred to release team decisions without questioning the basis > of their authority (that question having only arisen as a side-effect > of the team's DPL delegation). That suggests that the release team > have done well at making these decisions and should continue to do so. > In which case the right fix is to regularise the basis for their > decisionmaking. Again, no objection from me against writing down somewhere that the RT has a privileged role in adapting NMU rules, in case this will be considered necessary at some point in the future. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Davy Graham: Pretty Polly
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature