On 23.05.2013 08:28, tony mancill wrote: >> He made a number of dubious NMUs (just to upgrade the packaging to >> newer debhelper/source formats/etc) and he doesn't seem to be aware of >> the requirements for uploads during the freeze [1]. > > Reference [1] is about 2 and 1/2 years old, and I don't know what the > half-life is for mistakes, but it doesn't bother me that much. His NMUs > were to fix bugs (often RC bugs) *and* upgrade packaging, never (to my > knowledge) merely to update packaging. At least the NMUs of his that I > sponsored. And given that he doesn't have upload rights, they were all > sponsored. So your beef is more properly with me. (But let's save the > debate about the scope of NMUs for a separate thread.) This is not to debate whether dpatch, 1.0 packages or whatever should die. Not too many of us disagree on that. We do disagree that this should happen in a NMU. From developer's reference: 5.11.1. When and how to do an NMU Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions: Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs is discouraged. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu And Jari has continuously shown to ignore this suggestion, and do right that, despite of people telling him very often to refrain from doing so. This indicates an ignorance of our codes of conduct. Why would we welcome someone as a trusted member of a community, when that person has continuously shown to knowingly ignore the associated rules? And just for the record: YOU should also refrain to sponsor such uploads. It's your role as a sponsor to act as a controlling instance who can point people to such best practices and tell them what (not to) do. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature