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

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


On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > the DEP says:
> >  - must use BTS,
> >  - usage of DELAYED is recommended.
> I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the 
> maintainer is required *before* uploading (DELAYED or not)

I see delayed as a way to do "wait some time and then upload".  That is,
uploading to DELAYED should not be considered "uploading a package" IMO.
It's simply a tool to not need to get back at it if things are going as
planned (either the package should be NMUed, or the maintainer uploads a
new version in time).

> by sending an "intend to NMU" (conform current policy basically):
> - packages that are clearly actively maintained (can be seen from changelog)
> - packages that are maintained by active teams

So I don't think any special consideration is needed here.  Of course,
if writing a NMU changelog entry is too much trouble for you, you're
free to upload just a patch.  But uploading an NMU patch to DELAYED and
the BTS at the same time is acceptable even if you don't expect the NMU
to actually reach the archive, IMO.

> There should normally be no need to NMU in such cases and just preparing a 
> good patch for the BTS should be sufficient.

Yes, but there's no harm in preparing an NMU anyway, so there's no need
to forbid it IMO.  I'd just let people decide what method they prefer.

> The intend to NMU could say "I plan to do an NMU to DELAYED X in Y days; 
> please reply before then if you'd prefer to do the upload yourself".

What's wrong with uploading to DELAYED/X+Y ?

> Exceptions to this rule could be allowed for urgent cases, but the NMU'er 
> had better be prepared to defend himself if challenged about it (i.e. have 
> good reasons for not following the rule).

The approach of the DEP is to not make strict rules, but only
recommendations.  Not following them does indeed need a reason.

But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
time, but that's your own problem).  So no reasons are needed for it.


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: