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

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?



Reply to: