On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > > "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? Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks "oh, that's an old issue and the fix seems so simple" and goes ahead and NMUs it, while there may be very valid reasons for not fixing it (or at least not with _that_ fix). A follow-up to the bug report with just "hey, this issue seems to be forgotten, could someone please take another look as it seems important" would then be a lot more appropriate and take a lot less time all around then preparing the patch, uploading it to delayed and then getting to hear "sorry, this is not good, please remove your NMU from the queue". Large teams also often have large numbers of issues to deal with. Which does mean that (unfortunately) issues may be missed or forgotten about. Or maybe it is something that is normally taken care of by one particular team member and other team members ignored the issue for that reason but are capable of picking it up if prompted to do so. There is just no reason to bypass the maintainers if they are otherwise active. In such cases just talking to the maintainers (through the BTS or otherwise) is just a lot more appropriate and effective, at least as a first step, than going straight to an NMU - even with the safeguards incorporated in the DEP.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.