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

Re: RFC: Debian Quality Assurance Group



On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I'm not really sure... people can get in situations where they can be
> > totally unreachable for a week or so, and if we do the NMU too soon,
> > they may not get the chance to do it themselves because they didn't
> > even get to read the message (when you don't read debian-devel for 10
> > days you surely won't notice one message among others). We must
> > remember, that this is basically stepping on people's toes as careful
> > as possible :)
> 
> ... you're speaking of debian-devel, 

What debian-devel? I meant that the maintainer in question can be throttled
by the amount of mail from the -devel list, after not reading it for a week.

> I think that the QA member has to send his intent to NMU to -qa and to
> the personal email of the maintainer.

I don't see whay intent to NMU is neccessary to be sent to -qa, but okay.
A message to the BTS counts as a personal e-mail to the maintainer.

> The maintainer has two weeks to say, « no please don't, i'll
> do it myself » or « go for it and thanks for the help ». If we don't get
> any response to a mail sent to him personnaly within 15 days (and that
> we don't know that he is absent !), then the QA member should have the
> right to make the NMU.

I think you mean that I should empahsize that if the maintainer okays
the NMU request, that the QA Group member may do it at any time (not
having to wait for the X days to pass), right?

I still think that the maintainer should have more time to say anything.
Well, the number could be 20 days...

> Of course, if the response is no then the QA member don't have the right
> to do his NMU before we reached the second limit (30 days).

I think if the answer is "no", and no upload is made withing 30 days,
then just bring the issue to debian-qa list, and let others decide if
the maintainer's reasoning is good enough to warrant not uploading.
I'll include that in the text, thanks for mentioning the possibility.

IMHO doing exactly the opposite of what the maintainer says is simply
calling for trouble, and we must aim to avoid unneeded confrontation.

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/


Reply to: