On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> What is the difference for the maintainer between these? Not the time
> required for M; in all cases, the most M needs to do to prevent the NMU
> from happening is writing a mail to N (and the BTS). The only
> difference is what to say ("please cancel the NMU" or "please do not
> upload the NMU").
The difference is that now the maintainer is _forced_ to react before the
package reaches the end of the queue, so basically you are forcing him to
work on this particular issue while he may have other priorities. That is
not right.
You are also uploading a patch that the maintainer may never have had the
chance to review and comment on as the patch may not have been in the
original BR.
> In other words, the difference is only on the NMUer's part.
Nonsense.
> If there's no upload to DELAYED, he only needs to say he saw the bug,
> and that he's working on it. If there is an upload, he only needs to
> say he'll work on the bug, and that the NMU should be cancelled. No
> reordering of priorities is required.
Which assumes that the NMUer is available to do so, which is not
guaranteed by the DEP.
> No, not normal practice indeed. I agree with you that in many cases it
> is better to just send a patch. But I don't see a problem with
> uploading to DELAYED (with sufficiently high delay), if the NMUer
> prefers it.
I do and will continue to do so. The NMUer should not use DELAYED just
because "*he* prefers to work that way", but only he is convinced *after
checking the policy recommendations for NMUs* that it "is a suitable way
to deal with that particular BR for that particular package".
> No, I don't, I agree with you that this would be unacceptable.
Right, and that is where our opinions _do_ differ fundamentally.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.