Re: QA group best practice?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:37:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Funnily I'm the one who added that "rule" for the NMU in the
> developers-reference ... because I think it's useful for NMU :
> - the developer NMUed has no time otherwise he wouldn't be NMUed
> - the maintainer will get angry if has more problems after the NMU
>
> So it's better to be careful and follow what's happening after an NMU.
> However for QA, it's not so important since the QA maintainers are
> supposed to be never MIA since we're a group. So if a problem happen after
> an upload, there will be someone else to notice it and to fix it or at
> least to inform the uploader of his mistake.
Fairy 'nuff.
> > You can use 'at' to auto-unsubscribe
> > after a while.
>
> I know the trick, I explained it recently:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2003/debian-qa-200307/msg00078.html
>
> :-)
I have a terrible problem of not reading who is writing stuff on-lists, and
just absorbing the content. I knew I should have checked who made that
suggestion... <g>
> > Mmmmkay. The devel-ref will never look the same again...
>
> Your patch has not yet been accepted. :-)
The big one hasn't even been written yet. I honestly don't expect any of
the dev-ref authors (yourself included) to necessarily have the time to
integrate my patch in, what, 48 hours? I'm happy to give it a bit of time.
- Matt
Reply to: