Re: sponsored NMU's to be forbidden (Re: How can a non-DD fix broken packages?)
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
> You sure do have a point here. But that seems to apply to both DD's and
It would appply to those who can upload (i.e. DDs right now).
> non-DD's. I still don't see why a sponsored NMU would be bad.
It is not that sponsored NMUs are bad, it is that they are about the same as
a normal NMU (the difference being who proposed the fix...). Unless you are
talking about some DD which considers sponsoring to be "upload in blind
faith", in which case please tell us who is doing that so we can see to
getting his upload rights revoked.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot