Re: DM application for Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Monday 4 February 2008 23:14, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Although this may be technically very sound and yield the same result, I do
> agree that the signal sent by uploading to DELAYED/2 right away is quite a
> different one from the second scenario.
>
> Not to discredit your very useful work, but I hardly see any reason why this
> bug needed to be fixed two days later already. Of all the choices of the
> delayed queue, 2 instead of 10 suggests some real urgency which I cannot find
> in this bug.
>
> Uploading to the DELAYED/10 queue has the exact same effect for you (no need
> to come back to it) but allows for much more time, including a weekend, for
> the maintainer to address the issue themselves, and hence sends, in my view,
> a lot less "pushy" message to an active maintainer.
>
> Or alternatively if there is a convincing reason to shorten the delay,
> indicate that reason rather than resorting to a purely procedural argument
> ("it's allowed") like you did in the cited bug log.
>
> Just to repeat that I find your work very useful, but I can also understand
> Aurélien's sentiment in this and I think that both interests can be satisfied
> here with just this little tweak in approach.
Hmm, I do understand that some maintainers don't like these 2-day or
0-day NMUs, but they only happen if the maintainer doesn't (re)act to RC
or Release Goal bugs for at least 7 days...
You can argue that 7 days is rather short, but one is only expected to
send something to the bugreport which clarifies one's intentions in that
time frame...
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: