Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
>>> 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.
... which led me to thinking of what we could do to improve the current
situation while staying consensual.
Because I didn't find consensus in the thread you referenced, I should
be forbidden to propose anything about NMUs forever?
> I am all ears if you want to explain where this new "consensus" comes
Re-read this thread and the one from the first call for comments. All
comments except yours and Charles' have been on details, from people
generally agreeing with the principles outlined in this DEP.
> 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.
Please stop suspecting things. Please quote real problems in the DEP,
and provide alternatives.
It seems that you are reading this DEP as "the DEP from the guy I
disagreed with about NMUs". That's unfair. There are two drivers listed
at the top of the DEP for a reason. And the DEP already went through a
lot of review, first private, then public (look at the wiki history if
| Lucas Nussbaum
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |