Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>>> I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you
>>> can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that
>>> you have the RIGHT to do it no matter what.
>>>
>>
>> I made the following change to the DEP to address this: (wdiff format)
>>
>> When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences
>> between the current package and your NMU to the BTS. If the bug you
>> are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well.
>>
>> {+After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible
>> problems that you might have introduced. You must monitor the package
>> for a few weeks (subscribing to the package on the PTS is a good
>> idea).+}
>>
>> While there are no general rules, it's recommended to upload to the
>> DELAYED queue with a delay of at least a few days. Here are some
>> examples that you could use as default values:
>>
> I have the same concern about this language as I did when I explained
> in October (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/10/msg00229.html)
> that a person should follow the usual NMU rules. It may be a case where
> agree to disagree, but our developers reference clearly states in section
> 5.11.1 (http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference) to "contact the
> developer first, and act later."
The goal of the DEP is precisely to replace this section 5.11, and
change the usual NMU rules. That's why it's submitted as a DEP (to allow
broad discussion), not as an obscure patch to devref :-)
> I see the same weakness that Henrique listed above. Some people will
> prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer. They
> will claim that this was 'done by the book.' I am not oblivious to what
> you (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/10/msg00547.html) may
> find "painful" but, I still want to stress that we should strive to improve
> communication when we can. You did not find consensus to adopt your
> view back then, and I hope you will not use DEP1 to establish your
> preference now.
The DEP's content is different from what was discussed back then (have
you read it?). And I think that there's consensus that the NMU rules
proposed in the DEP are reasonable, implement what is already done by
some NMUers, and will make life of NMUers easier, allowing NMUs to be
done in a more efficient manner.
> Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the
> maintainer. They will claim that this was 'done by the book.'
As long as the NMUer sends all the information to the BTS, I'm perfectly
fine with the NMUer not sending a private email to the maintainer. (and
I think that there's consensus about that)
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: