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
> notified".
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?
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: