Re: DEP1: how to do an NMU
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for
>>> team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
>>> instead." to the bullet list.
>> It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
>> might become unresponsive at the same time. I don't think that we
>> should special-case this.
> Yes, it probably does depend on the team. But several people have raised
> this point now, which probably means that it _is_ a real concern. When
> are you (the proposers of this DEP) going to start listening to your
> peers instead of dismissing their concerns?
> A lot of packages are team-maintained not only because it is more fun to
> work together, but also because those packages (or groups of packages)
> are more complex, or have interactions that may not be obvious at first
> glance. Which means that there may well be a bigger likelyhood that an
> NMU will break things.
> "All members of a team becoming unresponsive" is possible, agreed.
> But it is a hell of a lot less likely than "at least one member of the
> team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if appropriately
So, why should there be any special treatment as they are more likely to
respond early anyway? Or are you questioning normal NMU intents, RC/RG
bugs and d-d-a announcements as appropriate notifications?