Hi, On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:43:55PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > I've prepared an NMU with this changes (versioned as 1.3.3-3.1). > > Erm, without givinbg the maintainer the chance to add the fix himself? That's not how > NMUs are supposed to work. I'm going to quote the developer reference, section 5.11.1: | Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some | time to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the | DELAYED queue). Here are some recommended values to use for delays: | | (...) | | * Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days This release-critical bug has been open for more than twenty days, so I understand that this is how NMUs are supposed to work. > > As I don't have privileges to upload it to DELAYED, [...] > > I am inclinced to say "thankfully" here. In hopes of being constructive, would you care to explain why? Section 5.11.3 says: | Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is | inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to | the issue. On top of that, section 5.6.2 says: | It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this | package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example, when | preparing a Non-Maintainer Upload, you might want to give the maintainer | a few days to react. I've used mentors as a replacement of DELAYED in hopes that, if you were unresponsive for the aforementioned time, another DD could have easily sponsored the NMU. Would you care to explain why do you think I shouldn't have hypothetically used DELAYED in this way? Thanks in advance, Rul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature