Re: removal instead of orphaning?
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 2016-08-28 21:50 Sean Whitton:
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that one measure to improve the current situation is that, for
>>> the people doing NMUs, to orphan the package when the number of NMUs
>>> exceeds for example 3 or 5 in a row, or 1 year since the oldest NMU not
>>> acked by the maintainers and there are bugs or reasons requiring new
>>> intervention. (Exceptions can apply if there are specific reasons to
>>> avoid to do that, e.g. keep packages as part of a team). With this,
>>> future NMUs will be QA uploads.
>>>
>>> If there's a general agreement that this is a good thing, and somehow
>>> becomes part of the NMU process or similar guidelines [2], it would help
>>> to avoid conflicts.
>>
>>
>> If you have time to make this idea into a patch, a bug against
>> developers-reference would be a good place to discuss it.
>
>
> I failed to do this in the last few weeks and it looks like the next
> will be worse in terms of spare time, so I'll see what I can do, but I
> cannot promise anything :-/
>
> Also, I hoped to gather some feedback to the message at least, to see if
> the above looks reasonable to most people.
With the BTS version tracking feature, acking NMUs is no longer needed
as the BTS tracks changelog heritage IIRC, so I'd not mention that in
the description.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: