Re: Too much disruptive NMUs
On 24/05/10 at 11:14 +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote:
> So we're back at what I said in the other mail: if those processes we
> already have take too long let's shorten them and make those neglected
> packages fall under QA umbrella faster, do not use NMU as a general
> procedure because a NMU it's not the thing for that.
>
> And if you think it's adequate to NMU it should be clearly stated in the
> relevant documents (notice I'm not against any of both options), otherwise
> an immediate increase of some packages' quality could bring a decrease of
> our inter-maintainer relationships quality on the long term for using NMUs
> for workarounding such processes.
I drove the last DEP on the topic of NMUs, and am reasonably satisfied
with the current wording. I haven't heard of any maintainer complaining
about recent NMUs, so I think that we are still fine on the
inter-maintainer relationship side.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: