Re: package ownership in Debian
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:52:36 -0300, Gustavo Franco <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On 7/28/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Joerg Jaspert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Simply change the NMUs to be always 0-day, for all bugs
>> > >=3Dnormal. Which means - upload and mail to BTS at the same
>> > time.
>> Would that mean we get BTS+NMU tennis instead of BTS tennis, where
>> differences of opinion over what is a serious bug result in 0-day
>> NMUs as well as BTS reopens?
>> The key trouble is that non-maintainers are often not familiar with
>> the history of the package and the difficult decisions which have
>> been taken and some don't bother to follow the references given in
>> the changelog. Meanwhile, there's some pressure not to make the
>> debian dir so verbose it includes transcripts of key discussions.
> That's right, but we're not talking about me uploading stuff to fix
> the kernel, for example. There's a team and i'm not in that team, so
> it makes no sense i jump the gun and upload the kernel to fix a
>> = normal bug. It isn't that easy to figure out at first, but if
>> well writtensomewhere (policy? developers reference?) could work.
Why is a 0 day NMU not OK policy when a team is not
maintaining a package well? If there is a bug in the package, it
should be fixed asap, regardless of how many people are
mismaintaining the package.
Not only Guinness - Linux is good for you, too. Banzai on IRC
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C