Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We should really document the result of this discussion in the developers' reference, which currently says:
,---- | NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are | encouraged and accepted. `---- This I always interpreted as "NMUs which fix normal, minor or wishlist bugs (only?) are discouraged and widely not accepted". > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Frank Küster wrote: >> Shouldn't NMU's without the maintainers approval be restricted to RC and >> maybe important bugs? > > No, unless you add some sort of timeframe. MIA or otherwise absent > maintainers are the usual reason why one needs NMUs. If a maintainer is "otherwise" absent, he usually sends a mail to -private which says "NMU as needed", and it's up to you to balance the impact of the fix with the time of vacation. If a maintainer is MIA, the package should be orphaned and/or the maintainer set to QA. Until this has happened, we might have to relax the NMU policy on that package. However, as always this should be made transparent: There should be notes to the most interesting bugs (or on the bug or qa page of the package) that the people interested in the bug suspect the maintainer to be MIA. This way, everybody can see how long it has been noticed that the package is badly maintained, and know better what timeframe is appropriate for an NMU. Furthermore, please note that the developers' reference recommends to ,---- | Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you | introduced with your NMU. You should probably use The Package Tracking | System, Section 4.10 (PTS) to stay informed of the state of the | package after your NMU. `---- Which means that you'll get more and more mails if you NMU many packages, and that you should consider taking over a package that you NMUed more than once... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
