[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:00:55PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > === nmudiff improvements
> Can you please just file a bug against devscripts and leave this out of
> the DEP?

No, because:

> > = 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 has.  This DEP changes the default way to handle an NMU from
"announce that you are going to do it, wait, do it" to "use the DELAYED
queue".  The new wording depends on the DELAYED queue being used.  If
the DEP is rejected, using this template doesn't make sense.

I agree that even then an improvement should be made, but it should be
different from what we propose here.

> >     * 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...

We just started.  This is already the third e-mail about it in this
thread. ;-)

> > = 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.

They're only guidelines, and if those teams don't follow them, well,
what can we do? :-)

But there are technical reasons for using this scheme (sorting of
versions is currently not always right, this is fixed with the
proposal), so I'd highly recommend the teams to follow the guidelines.


I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: