On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:46:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:31:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:35:08AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > It only means that someone > > > wanting to do an NMU for some probably minor, not really touching the > > > package, will not do it because he don't want that responsaibility or > > > more probably cannot assume it. > > > That's the correct response. If you can't handle the responsibility you > > shouldn't be touching other people's packages; you should be sending > > the maintainer patches through the BTS. If someone who can handle the > > responsibility of NMUing comes along and sees the patch before the > > maintainer gets around to it, that's all to the good. > > > > No need to attribute > > > responsabilities to people who possibly cannot fullfill them. > > > If you can't cope with -- ie, resolve -- the possible problems from NMUing, > > you should not be NMUing. > > This is the sticking point, I think. Are we talking about resolving the > possible problems *from* NMUing, or are we talking about resolving any > problems that happen to show up after the NMU? I absolutely agree that > an NMUer is responsible for fixing any problems caused by the NMU, but I > don't agree that NMUers should be held responsible for pre-existing bugs > in the package -- whether or not they happened to be exposed by the > NMU in question. > > I think that it's generally very silly for someone to NMU a package if > they don't care enough about it to want to try to resolve any RC bugs > that show up and keep the package out of testing; but I don't like the > climate of blame that Stephen Frost's posts seem to be promoting. He > seems to suggest that NMUers be held even more accountable than the > packages' maintainers: the worst that happens to a maintainer is that > he doesn't get to see his package included in the stable release, but it > sounds like NMUers are going to be roasted three ways from Sunday for > bugs they didn't actually cause. If that's the case, I have no > inclination whatsoever to NMU buggy packages -- I'd much rather file for > their removal from the archive.
BTW, that would be another way of achieving full translation of all packages in a release, remove all them that don't quickly enough apply the transition patch :))) Friendly, Sven Luther
