Re: RFC: Debian Quality Assurance Group
Le Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 02:46:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin écrivait:
> > > 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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think that's not true. Is this is the case for you, then you should
setup some filters for keeping -devel in a separate folder. ;-)
> 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.
Yes but you can still answer to messages adressed to you directly. Some
times I don't read -devel too, but the mail adressed to me falls in
a separate box and I'm still responding.
> I don't see whay intent to NMU is neccessary to be sent to -qa, but okay.
I said that because I thought that you wanted to use -devel for
coordination and for informing about possible NMUs. Of course, I do
not see the need of posting to -qa but it may be good so that
others are informed on what you do and so that you have a public statement
in which the date can be verified. ;-)
> A message to the BTS counts as a personal e-mail to the maintainer.
Yes.
> 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?
Of course.
> I still think that the maintainer should have more time to say anything.
> Well, the number could be 20 days...
Okay, 20 days is 3 weeks. That's long enough. If a maintainer does not
read his email during 3 weeks, he will be lost even with the
volume of -private. :-)
> 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.
Yes that's fine.
> IMHO doing exactly the opposite of what the maintainer says is simply
> calling for trouble, and we must aim to avoid unneeded confrontation.
Of course.
Cheers,
--
Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
Reply to: