On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:31:35PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:10:43AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Maybe we should write a DEP about "Recommended practices for NMU" to > > > clarify all this. Is someone interested in driving this with me? > > From where I sit, the right way to do this is to propose a patch to > dev-ref changing whatever is incorrect in dev-ref to contain the > proper consensus, Well, yes, that's the idea. As I understand the DEP proposal, it just streamlines exactly that process. By saying "let's create a DEP about it", we're saying that we want a patch for dev-ref, by finding out what the consensus about this really is (or trying to reach it, if it doesn't exist yet), and once all that is done, propose the patch. The DEP should be ACCEPTED before the patch is proposed. The whole point is that there doesn't seem to be real consensus about this, so we will want to reach that first. It isn't as simple as "we all know how it should be, let's just write it down", I think. But if you disagree, please suggest the proper response to the discussion that triggered this idea: when an NMU is made, and uploaded to the 2-day DELAYED queue, is the maintainer right to complain that he should have been given more time? And when it was uploaded directly to ftp-master? Looking at the responses, I'd say it's safe to conclude that there is no consensus about this yet. Lucas wants to change that, and so do I. :-) > and pointing problematic maintainers at it and the discussion of its > rationale. While the discussion is happening, a DRAFT DEP is much nicer than a bunch of mailinglist threads. When this particular DEP is ACCEPTED, a patch to dev-ref should be proposed and once it's in, the DEP can go to OBSOLETE. So in this case, the main benefit of using DEP is that during the discussion there is a readable document telling about the state. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature