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

Re: DEP1: how to do an NMU

On 31/05/08 at 18:44 +0200, 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.

So far, you (in <200805301141.02910.elendil@planet.nl> and
<200805301718.06394.elendil@planet.nl>) and Charles Plessy
<20080531152214.GA8808@kunpuu.plessy.org>) raised that concern. On the
other hand, Bas Wijnen
(<20080530101631.GA15849@a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl>) and I disagreed
that a special consideration was needed. We can't just blindly add
every suggestion that people propose, because that would make other
people unhappy.

I am opposed to forbidding NMUs, or requiring prior ack from
the maintainer, for some categories of maintainers. If we start listing
such categories, we will end up with something like:
 - teams with at least one very active/responsive member, or two
   active/resposnive members
 - very active/responsive DDs, unless they are in VAC for more than n days
That will be totally a PITA to check, and very error-prone. (how do you
measure activity and responsiveness?)

Instead, I'm totally open to emphasizing the fact that if the package is
maintained by a team or by a known-active DD, the NMUer should really try
harder to contact the maintainers before proceeding with the NMU.

Phil Hands proposed something in <20080531101718.GE17257@hands.com>:
> Clearly there are cases where NMUs are inappropriate.  The DEP is currently
> missing language to make that point clear (at least in my reading of it)
> perhaps it needs a final clause along the lines of:
>   This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly.  If you NMU when
>   it is clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged
>   a patch in a more timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations
>   of this DEP, or if you do something else that assumes that this is an
>   NMUers charter and that a lawyerly interpretation of some subclause
>   can be used to justify some abusive action, be warned, there is no
>   protection for you here.  You should always be prepared to defend the
>   wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits.

Frans, would adding that paragraph solve your concerns, or can you
suggest a patch to this paragraph that would solve them?

> are you (the proposers of this DEP) going to start listening to your 
> peers instead of dismissing their concerns?

If you started to propose wordings that would suit you, instead of
waiting for us to propose stuff by mind-reading, that would be a lot
easier to listen to you.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: