Quoting Thomas Goirand (firstname.lastname@example.org): > You can actually NMU, I never wrote you shouldn't. I only wrote that you > should use our Git, which should be the only authoritative repository to > reduce the risks that some translations gets forgotten in the > translation war. So if you really wanted to speed-up, the only thing you > had to do was build and upload (or you can call it sponsor the upload as > well! :)). So let me reinstance my proposal: do you wish to have write > access to our Git? This is not exactly how I see an NMU. In an NMU, the NMUer doesn't really *have* to cope with the VCS practices of the maintainer(s). Imagine: I could very well be reluctant to use git...or ignorant about it (and not wanting to learn about it just for an NMU), etc. The real NMU I would have done would have been the exact way it is recommended by the Policy: start from the package in the archive, apply the changes I intend to have incorporated, then send the NMU patch to the maintainer and build the package the way.....I want to build the package. Then upload (to DELAYED/<foo>) Building from your GIT repo would mean that I take responsibility for other changes that could be pending there....not to mention that I have to learn about *your* way to use git. In any case, this didn't have to happen as you uploaded (and I think it's a much better way to fix things....I'm really sorry that you felt pressured about this upload but, when it comes at stuff I care about, it was time to do it).
Description: Digital signature