[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Choice Hartmans1a

Le 22/11/2019 à 03:01, Sam Hartman a écrit :

> I think it is important to emphasize that these bugs can be NMUed in
> this choice.

By doing that, this choice de facto overrides the currently documented
(and working) NMU workflow and practices.

I believe it opens a can of worms. It sets on stone an NMU workflow,
making it impossible to let the rule evolve as it usually did. Worse, if
such things is accepted via GR, one will be able to argue later that
other NMU fixes are not acceptable (“the only NMU fix one can do is the
one the project agreed on with GR2019#1“).

There were other concerns raised about RCness and severity of bugs.
Given the length of many of the proposed options, I wonder how many of
those counterproductive corner cases will we be able to find in the next
twenty years.

In the past, at least GR2007#2 (the only GR I was able to find that
evokes NMU) was worded as “the initial policy [on matter X is …]”,
making it possible to let things evolve without the need to endure
another GR process.

	GR2007#2: https://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: