Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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?
That has to be decided by common sense, on a case-by-case basis. I
remember when once I screwed up the postrm script of tetex-base or
-bin, and it meant that every attempt of a buildd to build a package
which build-depended on teTeX would lead to a screwed buildd which
needed manual intervention.
The package was NMUed without asking, and I think that was correct. I
was upset at the time, partly because I sort the ACCEPTED messages
differently than BTS e-mail, and read the upload notification before I
even knew about the bug, and partly because there was no patch or NMU
announcement in the BTS.
But except for the missing patch: Doing the upload ASAP was the right
thing to do, given the simpleness of the fix (a trivial bash syntax
But the DEP *should* definitely require an explicit "I want to NMU" or,
in the teTeX case, "I have done the NMU".
> 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.
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)