Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
- From: Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 13:00:55 +0200
- Message-id: <483946E7.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20080525065045.GF8439@a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl>
- References: <20080525065045.GF8439@a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl>
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> === nmudiff improvements
Can you please just file a bug against devscripts and leave this out of
> = the nmudiff patch is not controversial. Why include it in the DEP?
> * If the DEP isn't agreed upon, the patch has no reason to be
> included in devscripts.
It also has no reason to not be included AFAICS.
> * It gives the opportunity to discuss the formulation at the same
> time as the rest of the DEP.
> * DEPs are supposed to allow changes in several parts of Debian at
> the same time. That's a good test case :-)
Ok, though I didn't see much discussion about it...
> = Is that really the best place to discuss stable, security and QA
> uploads, and binNMUs?
Yes, though the versioning of security uploads will probably be used and
decided by the Security Teams and the versioning of stable uploads will
probably be used and decided by the Stable Release Team anyway... Though
I won't oppose guidelines for the versioning.