Cyril Brulebois wrote:
The rules defined in [1] applied. And instead of pinging the maintainer, waiting, and then uploading (to DELAYED/0), it looked like (after talking with DDs during the BSP I mentioned) that DELAYED/n was a good means of notifying the maintainer, through the nmudiff sent to the bug, making the patch publicly visible, as well as the status of the bug (patch & pending tags), and letting the maintainer the time to react. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/09/msg00000.html
While that link describes a temporary necessity, the regular NMU rules still apply. I do not know which DDs you talked with, but submitting an NMU to a "DELAYED/n" queue IS NOT "a good means of notifying the maintainer." You should always try to contact the maintainer first! I am not suggesting that a maintainer that refuses to respond will hold up the NMU. I want to explicitly note the disrepect that is shown when a maintainer first learns of the NMU from a DELAYED queue without prior notice. If a person cannot communicate with some email, being a 'lone wolf' submitting NMUs will not benefit the project in the long term. The NMU does not replace communication skills. The link above deals with a special need. Lack of communication will create other special problems. My response here is not directed to a specific person or conversation. I just want to prevent a flood of NMUs as "a good means of notifying the maintainer." Richard