On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:02:23PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 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. Unfortunately when you hear them the damage is already done, which also breaks the 5.11.1 third point's maxim: "Above all, do no harm." The policy of "stressing until it breaks" is good for testing software, but I found it pretty inadequate for dealing with people (even if they are lazy maintainers). Anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts. -- Ricardo Mones ~ 00:45 < hammar> cool.. have you used rssyl? 00:46 <@Ticho> um, yes Seen on #sylpheed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature