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

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

Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)

On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
> <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> said:  
> > On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> > The goal of the DEP is precisely to replace this section 5.11, and
> > change the usual NMU rules. That's why it's submitted as a DEP (to
> > allow broad discussion), not as an obscure patch to devref :-)
>         I think that not communicating with the maintainer is not a
>  desirable change to the document.
> >> 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)
>         For the record, I don't think that we should remove the language
>  about informing the maintainer with a mail message; and no, I don't
>  think we quite have a consensus on this yet.

The DEP currently addresses communication like that:

  When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences
  between the current package and your NMU to the BTS.  If the bug you
  are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well.

I have several questions about the requirement for communication that
you want to add:
- Do you want to require two-way communication?
- If the maintainer doesn't answer, how much time should the NMUer wait
  for the maintainer, in your opinion?
- Are the delays that are strongly recommended in the DEP really too
  short, in your opinion?

The current wording requires a notification (by sending a mail to the
BTS). I don't think that it's a good idea to additionally require that
this mail should be sent to the maintainer's private email address,
because that doesn't work well with co-maintainance.

The current wording doesn't require the NMUer to wait for an
acknowledgement. Instead, it strongly recommends to give some time to
the maintainer, which doesn't make a big difference ...
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Reply to: