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

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

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:


The DEP's content is different from what was discussed back then (have
you read it?). And I think that there's consensus that the NMU rules
Yes, I have read it. That is one reason why I stated that I have
the same concern expressed last year.
proposed in the DEP are reasonable, implement what is already done by
some NMUers, and will make life of NMUers easier, allowing NMUs to be
done in a more efficient manner.

While this may be true, I question how a "more efficient"
NMU process will be better than working to improve
communication. If the goal is to improve section 5.11 of
the Developer's Reference, I think it would be beneficial
to strengthen the gains that already have been made. The
current language highlights the importance of communication
by admonishing a person to contact the maintainer first and
act later.

Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the
maintainer. They will claim that this was 'done by the book.'

As long as the NMUer sends all the information to the BTS, I'm perfectly
fine with the NMUer not sending a private email to the maintainer. (and
I think that there's consensus about that)
You failed to find consensus in the thread I referenced in the
previous message. I am all ears if you want to explain where
this new "consensus" comes from. The behaviour that Charles
Plessy described today might be very efficient at helping others
with NMUs. I suspect his comment may be based upon the
practice of some NMUers. If your consensus deals with this
prospect, the communication improvements should be obvious.


Reply to: