"Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (04/10/2007): > It wasn't aggressive, at least for me it wasn't.
You were. Using “crap” for a patch isn't that kind. See nion's & sam's answers. > I just didn't understand at all why someone wanted to upload a NMU > with a broken patch while I was aware of the issue and planned to work > on it. Was the bug tagged “pending” or “confirmed”? It wasn't. Did it ever get an answer from the maintainer? It didn't. > Please look at fuse maintainers again. I'm not the maintainer. $ apt-cache showsrc fuse | grep Uploaders Uploaders: Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're either playing on words, or you didn't get how Debian works. > I had to work on fuse because the package was heavily broken and lead > me to serious issues for my ntfs-3g package. Of course, that's others' fault every time. And even if you did an NMU at that time, you would be considered in charge for a while. Don't look for bad excuses. > This bug was open ages before I start working on fuse and I'm not > aware at all of this issue. You don't look at the BTS when you're working on a package? Way to go… > Could you please tell me how would you have reacted if someone wanted > to upload a broken NMU for a package you're maintaining? I guess something like “thanks but…” would be the way to answer. YMMV. > I should have answered faster to this bug report, Definitely. > and the NMUdiff submiter's should have contacted me before wanting to > upload a NMU. Uploading to DELAYED/n and sending the nmudiff is technically the same as sending the nmudiff, waiting n days and uploading. If you want to avoid the NMU, do a MU. Or if you can't for some reasons (e.g. you're busy fixing old bugs, oh wait, you don't look at the BTS, but well, imagine you did), ask the NMUer to cancel the upload. > Both are responsible of this glitch, it's not only my fault... Sam was talking about yours. Don't reject yours on others. -- Cyril Brulebois
pgp26XBBVRRiQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
