Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:17:03 +0200, Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Once you NMU, you are that package's daddy for *ALL* bugs that could
>> even remotely be related to your NMU, until its maintainer shows up
>> again... People who can't deal with that, must not NMU. Send the
>> patch to the BTS instead.
> This is not sustainable on the archive as a whole.
Could you elaborate? It certainly has been my understanding
that if you NMU a package, you are responsible for any breakage you
> It's always best top have an active developer for the most important
> packages so that DD who are not familiar with the code don't have to
> NMU at all... but in general, there's no need to go to that extreme
> route of saying that once NMUed you're the maintainer until the
> maintainer comes back.
I do not think that the NMU'er is the maintainer, and is
responsible for new upstream, long standing bugs, or the other things
the maintainer does. However, I think it is also unsustainable to give
the impression that drive by NMU's are just fine, and it is OK to leave
a train of wrecked packages in your wake.
This comes back to the principle that one is responsible for
what one uploads into the archive; if one's upload causes bugs, one is
responsible for taking care of the bugs.
Dammit Jim, I'm an actor, not a doctor.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C