On 30/05/08 at 12:23 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a
> > NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that
> > he should be given time to react.
>
> I'm one of the people who "disagrees", but actually I don't. ;-) When
> planning an NMU, you must notify the maintainer, and give him time to
> react, and respond to the reaction. That's basically the same thing as
> consulting him IMO, except that "no response" leads to "Ok". I think
> that is good, it's one of the reasons NMUs are possible at all.
>
> > > result in more cases where the NMUer would not give some time to the
> > > maintainer.
> >
> > Exactly, I propose that the maintainer can say "no, thank you" whithout
> > it becoming a crisis.
>
> Certainly. If that wasn't clear, please propose a new wording for that
> part of the DEP.
Proposed wdiff: (not applied to the wiki)
== 5.11.1 When and how to do an NMU ==
[...]
While there are no general rules, it's {+strongly+} recommended to
[-upload-] {+give some time to the maintainer to react (for example,
by uploading+} to the DELAYED [-queue with a delay of at least a few
days.-] {+queue).+} Here are some [-examples-] {+example delays+} that
you could use as default values:
The new paragraph is: (yes, wdiff is hard to read)
While there are no general rules, it's strongly recommended to give
some time to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to
the DELAYED queue). Here are some example delays that you could use
as default values:
What do you think?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature