On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of > the intro, which didn't really add any value. Agreed. > + * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you > + tried to contact him? 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 things that an > NMUer might miss. "things" is a bit vague: s/things that an NMUer might miss/potential issues which an NMUer might miss/ > +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 document, 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. s/more timely/timely/ The "more" does not really refer back to anything. Thanks. For me this is a definite improvement. Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.