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

Re: DEP1: how to do an NMU

On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
> maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...

Sure. For me it is not necessarily about "teams", but more about "active": 
likely to respond and take care of urgent issues him/her/themselves when 
prodded, thus making an NMU unnecessary.

Basically I and several others have been asking to add something that 
effectively (and more explicitly than in the current proposal) says:

   Please consider before you NMU if just contacting the maintainer isn't
   likely to more effective than doing an NMU.

   In general it should be considered preferable that a maintainer
   takes care of an issue himself and that he is given the chance to
   review and correct your patch, because he can be expected to be more
   aware of corner cases and complex interactions, things that an NMUer
   might miss.

Something like this could be added in the intro of 5.11. It is somewhat 
similar in intend to the text proposed by Philip Hands.

Teams is for me just a case where you can reasonably expect NMUers to 
seriously consider that option, a bit more so than with solo maintainers 
(generally speaking).

IMO people who do NMUs are mostly also people who _are_ aware of who 
(individual and teams) is active/responsive and who is not, so I would be 
very surprised if this is not the actual practice with people who already 
are active doing more than just an occasional NMU.

NMUs should remain a fallback if maintainers really fail to respond to 
Maintainers should also continue to be allowed to set priorities for their 
packages. NMUs force maintainers to change their priorities as they will 
*have* to deal with the NMU (either reject it or incorporate it) before 
they can resume work on other issues.

I am not against NMUs, and also not against the DEP, but I would like to 
have made clear that there are cases where NMUs are just not the 
appropriate way to fix a pet issue, especially not for anything below RC.

Categories for which I _do_ believe NMUs are appropriate:
- really urgent, or important and obviously safe issues (see example acked
  by Frank Küster in <87ej7ide0q.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch>)
- changes needed for larger transitions or release goals where maintainers
  are failing to respond to repeated signals to do something
- RC issues that affect users (excluding e.g. licence issues); I have no
  problems with the current practice for those
- and possibly a few more

The DEP should not be a licence to avoid entering into a discussion with 
the maintainer of a package, or to pre-empt him.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: