[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 10:01:05PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I have read better emails from you, Raphaël.

Useless personal attack.

> The difference between "using the BTS" and "asking the maintainer" is
> that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU
> is welcome.
> When we give obvious signs of activity, I and others prefer being
> consulted before a NMU is performed.

The whole point of this DEP (as I see it, YMMV) is avoiding delays which
can block the enthusiasm of someone which is working on a problem,
because somebody else is not. Too many times it happens that the diluted
current NMU procedure block problem fixes.

The technique to do so is to let people which are on the enthusiastic
peak of bug fixing work pro-actively and *then* upload to delayed and
mail.  If the maintainer of the affected package is one of the active
ones, by definition it will have time to react if he consider the fix
bogus or whatever else [1].  If the maintainer is not active, the delay
will just expire, the package will be uploaded, and the difference with
the current procedure which require to mail first will be irrelevant.

So, what is the problem you are trying to point out? What has the active
maintainer type of DD to loose?


[1] yes, there are technical issues here, like who can delete stuff from
    delayed, and how long the delays should be. AFAIR they have been
    discussed in other threads related to DEP1

Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org}  -<%>-  http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\    All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/    right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: