Re: QA Upload best practices, 2nd draft
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:12:23PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Anyway, I think the scenario is not very likely. I was more thinking
> about new upstream released which is normally a bad idea for NMUs but
> a good idea for QA uploads (if nobody uploads the new upstream
> version, we lag behind upstream which just increases the likelihood of
> me removing the package). I suppose you can mention that rewriting
> the rules file should only be done if there's a good reason and that
> the lowest common dominator should be followed (which in my opinion is
> debhelper, but not things like cdbs).
OK, I've heavily revised the "like an NMU" section. Check out the new draft
when it comes out in the near future (I want to make sure I get all comments
fixed first) and let me know what you think.
- Matt
Reply to: