Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
- From: Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:01:44 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20080530212325.GD5669@aquarium.takhisis.invalid> (Stefano Zacchiroli's message of "Fri\, 30 May 2008 23\:23\:25 +0200")
- References: <20080529213135.GB24822@xanadu.blop.info> <483F4EB1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080530062534.GB29536@xanadu.blop.info> <483FBE88.email@example.com> <20080530093943.GA6761@xanadu.blop.info> <483FE64A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080530125028.GA10474@ouaza.com> <20080530130105.GD9666@kunpuu.plessy.org> <email@example.com> <20080530164955.GM6485@dario.dodds.net> <20080530212325.GD5669@aquarium.takhisis.invalid>
* Stefano Zacchiroli
| Not that I am against requiring the specific NMU mention in the mail
| (especially considering how cheap it as a requirement), but isn't the
| package maintainer going to receive some upload notification for the
| entrance in DELAYED?
No, they are not.
| Out of memory indeed it is not, but probably it should (of course
| only the first time the package enters DELAYED, not each passing day
This requires a fair bit more state than the queue currently has. I'm
not sure I want to do this, at least not without a good and convincing
argument for why it's useful.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are